Peer Review Process

The peer review process can be generally outlined in several steps, though these steps vary somewhat from Journal to Journal as indicated in the diagram below. 

Feedback: “Reviewers must keep in mind that they represent the journal's readership.” “Will the audience of this specific journal consider this informative and beneficial?”

1. Submission of Manuscript: The submitting or corresponding author send the manuscript to the journal through the Manuscript Peer-Review Process Submission portal.

2. Editorial office scrutiny: The journal reviews the manuscript's structure and organization according to the author's guidelines to  ensure it contains the necessary sections, adheres to the style, and avoids plagiarism. At this stage, the paper's quality is not evaluated. 

3. Decision by Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The Editor-in-chief verifies whether the manuscript suitable for the journal is appropriately original, engaging, and aligns with the Aim & Scope criteria. If this is not the case, the manuscript may be declined without undergoing any additional review.

4. Editor-in-Chief assigns an Editorial Board (EB): Journals possess an Editorial board that manages the peer review process. 

5. Invitation to Reviewers: The managing editor dispatches requests to evaluate the manuscript to suitable reviewers who possess expertise in the same field. When responses come in, additional invitations are sent out, if needed, until the desired number of acceptances is reached – typically this is the second, but there can be some differences among journals.

6. Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation based on their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They agree or refuse. If feasible, when saying no, they could also recommend other reviewers.

7. Review is conducted: The reviewer dedicates time to read the manuscript multiple times. The initial reading serves to create a first impression of the paper. If significant issues are discovered at this point, the reviewer may choose to reject the paper without any additional effort. If not, they will read the paper multiple times, making notes to create a thorough point-by-point review. The review is subsequently sent to the journal, accompanied by a suggestion to accept or deny it, or alternatively with a request for revision, indicating whether it is major or minor before it is reassessed.

8. Journal evaluates the reviews: The managing editor evaluates all the submitted reviews prior to reaching a final conclusion. If the evaluations vary significantly, the editor might seek an additional reviewer to obtain another perspective prior to reaching a conclusion.

9. Decision is communicated: The editor forwards a decision email to the author containing all pertinent reviewer feedback. The anonymity of comments will depend on the specific peer review process utilized by the journal.

10. Acceptance confirmation: Upon acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production phase. If the manuscript is declined or returned for major or minor revisions, the handling editor must provide helpful feedback from the reviewers to assist the author in enhancing the article. At this stage, reviewers should receive an email or letter to notify them of the results of their review. If the paper is returned for revision, the reviewers can anticipate receiving a revised version, unless they have chosen not to participate further. Nonetheless, if only slight modifications were needed, the follow-up review could be conducted by the managing editor.