Peer review is a mandatory stage on the way to publishing an article in a journal indexed by Scopus or Web of Science. It is at this stage that a decision is made on whether the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial requirements. We look at the stages peer review involves, the models used to assess a manuscript, and how to respond to an editorial decision.
How does peer review proceed once an article is submitted to a journal?
Once a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team carries out an initial check known as a desk review. At this stage, the editors assess whether the topic fits the journal's scope, whether the article is formatted according to the journal's requirements, and whether the text is original. If a manuscript fails this check, it is rejected without being sent to reviewers at all – this outcome is known as a desk rejection.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to one or more external reviewers – scholars working in the same field; as a rule, one to three specialists are asked to assess a single article. The length of peer review varies from a few weeks to several months, depending on the editorial team's workload, reviewer availability, and the specifics of the discipline. Based on the assessment, the editorial board decides the manuscript's fate, drawing on the reviewers' recommendations without being strictly bound by them.
The main models of manuscript peer review
The review format is set by each journal's individual policy and is stated on its official website. The most common models are:
- single-blind peer review – the reviewer knows the author's identity, but the author does not know who the reviewer is
- double-blind peer review – the identities of both the author and the reviewer are hidden from each other
- open peer review – the identities of both parties are known to each other, and the review itself is sometimes published alongside the article
- post-publication review – assessment of the work continues after publication, carried out by the wider research community
The choice of model does not directly affect how rigorously a manuscript is assessed, but it does determine how much anonymity the participants have.
What decisions can an editorial board make after peer review?
Based on the outcome of peer review, a journal's editorial board issues one of several standard decisions:
- Acceptance without changes – this is rare and typically applies to manuscripts that are already at a high standard.
- Minor revision – the author needs to make small, targeted corrections that do not change the structure of the article.
- Major revision – more substantial changes are required to the methodology, argumentation, or structure of the manuscript.
- Resubmission – the work needs reworking that goes beyond a standard revision and is treated as a new submission.
- Rejection – the material does not fit the journal's scope or meet its quality requirements.
How authors should respond to reviewer comments
Responding to a review is a separate stage of working on an article, and the quality of that response often determines the editorial board's final decision. Authors should prepare a cover letter that addresses each comment in turn, stating exactly what has been changed in the text and in which section. If an author disagrees with a comment, it is best to justify that position with reference to data or methodology rather than leaving the comment unanswered. Failing to address even some of the comments is one of the most common reasons an article is rejected a second time, even after revision.
What most often leads to rejection or delays in publication?
The most common reasons an article is rejected during peer review include a mismatch with the journal's scope, a weak methodological basis, and insufficient argument for the work's scientific novelty. A separate group of issues involves breaches of publication ethics – self-plagiarism, incorrect citation, or an undisclosed conflict of interest between the author and a reviewer. Delays are more often down to organisational factors – finding suitable reviewers, the volume of revisions required, or how busy the editorial team is at a given time of year.
Additional time may also be needed if an article is sent for a second round of review following a major revision. Understanding these causes helps authors adjust their manuscript in advance and reduce the risk of a lengthy review period.
Peer review remains the principal mechanism for controlling the quality of academic publications, and its outcome rarely depends on a single factor. A manuscript prepared according to a journal's requirements, a well-founded methodology, and careful engagement with reviewer comments considerably improve the chances of successful publication – whatever quartile the target journal falls into.
Preparing an article for publication in a journal? The specialists at Scientific Publications can help you choose a suitable journal, get your manuscript ready for peer review, and support you at every stage of the publication process. To receive a free consultation, fill in the form below, and our manager will get in touch with you shortly. Onward to a successful publication!
