IP INNOVATIVE PUBLICATION PVT LTD
IP INNOVATIVE PUBLICATION PVT LTD
The peer review process can be broadly summarized into various steps, although these steps differ slightly from Journal to Journal as mentioned in the diagram below.
Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”
1. Submission of Manuscript: The corresponding or submitting authors submit the manuscript to the journal via Manuscript Peer-Review Process Submission portal.
2. Editorial office scrutiny: The journal checks the manuscript composition and arrangement against the journal's author’s guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections, style and plagiarism etc. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Decision by Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The Editor-in-chief checks that the manuscript appropriate for the journal is sufficiently original, interesting and fitting under Aim & Scope or not. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without being reviewed for any further action.
4. Editor-in-Chief assigns an Editorial Board (EB): Journals have an Editorial board who handles the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.
5. Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would an be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is second, but there is some variation between journals.
6. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
7. Review is conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the manuscript several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work, Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it, or else with a request for revision or highlight as either major or minor before it is reconsidered.
8. Journal evaluates the reviews: The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the review differs widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. Decision is communicated: The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
10. Acceptance confirmation: If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production stage. If the manuscript is rejected or sent back for either major or minor, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter to inform them of the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
