Peer Review

Peer review is a critical process in academic research where experts in a specific field evaluate a manuscript for its quality, accuracy, and relevance before it is published. This process ensures that the research meets the required standards of scientific rigor, credibility, and originality. By scrutinizing methodologies, findings, and interpretations, peer reviewers help identify flaws, suggest improvements, and validate the reliability of the work. Peer review promotes intellectual accountability and prevents the dissemination of incorrect or unsubstantiated claims. It fosters trust within the academic community and among the broader public, ensuring that only high-quality research contributes to the body of knowledge. Additionally, peer review provides constructive feedback to authors, enabling them to refine their work. It also aids in maintaining the integrity and reputation of scholarly journals. As a cornerstone of scientific communication, peer review is essential for advancing knowledge and driving innovation across disciplines.

How peer review works

Aurthor Submits article

Aurthor submits revised manuscript

Article assessed by editor

Rejected

Revision required

Sent to reviewers

Further review needed?

Reviews assessed by editor

Rejected

Accepted

Production

Publication

    1. Paper Submission
      The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to the journal, typically through an online platform such as Open Journal Systems (OJS). Journals may also accept submissions via email.
    2. Editorial Office Assessment
      The Editorial Office ensures that the submission adheres to the guidelines outlined in the journal’s Author Guidelines. At this stage, the content quality is not evaluated.
    3. Initial Assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
      The Editor-in-Chief reviews the manuscript to evaluate its scope, originality, and potential merit. The EIC may reject the paper at this stage if it does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.
    4. Assignment of an Associate Editor (AE)
      For journals that utilize Associate Editors, the EIC assigns the manuscript to an AE who will oversee the peer review process.
    5. Reviewer Invitations
      The assigned editor sends invitations to potential reviewers who possess the expertise to evaluate the manuscript. Invitations continue until the required number of reviewers—commonly two—is secured, though this may vary by journal.
    6. Reviewers Respond to Invitations
      Invited reviewers assess their suitability based on expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They either accept or decline the invitation and may suggest alternative reviewers if declining.
    7. Peer Review Process
      Accepted reviewers dedicate time to carefully read the manuscript multiple times. An initial read helps form a preliminary impression, while subsequent readings involve detailed note-taking to create a thorough, point-by-point review. The reviewer then submits their feedback along with a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.
    8. Peer Review Duration

After submission, the Editorial Office verifies that the manuscript complies with the journal’s Author Guidelines within five working days. Once the manuscript is transferred to the assigned editor, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) conducts an initial assessment within seven working days, and feedback is shared with the corresponding author. If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it proceeds to the peer review stage without delay. Reviewers are typically given one month to complete their evaluation; however, review time can be extended on the request of reviewer. The total duration of the peer review process depends on the number of review rounds required to achieve satisfactory quality standards.

    1. Evaluation of Reviews
      The handling editor examines all submitted reviews to determine the next steps. If the reviews are inconsistent, an additional reviewer may be invited to provide a balanced opinion.
    2. Communication of the Decision
      The editor sends the author a decision email, including anonymous reviewer comments for single- or double-anonymous peer review models. For journals with open or transparent peer review, the reviewers’ identities may also be disclosed to the authors.
    3. Next Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, 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 letting them know 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.

For inquiries, please write to us at send@researchrise.org

Useful Links