The peer review process may be summarized in ten stages. Please check what's involved below. Reviewers should realize that they are representing the journal's readers.
The paper is sent to the journal by the corresponding or submitting author. Typically, this is done through an online system on the journal website. Journals will occasionally accept email contributions.
The journal evaluates the paper's structure and arrangement according to the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure that it contains all of the essential sections and stylizations. The paper's quality is not being evaluated at this time.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
The editor-in-chief ensures that the article is acceptable for publication and it is original and attractive. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without further review.
4. Editor-in-Chief Assigns an Associate Editor
The journal has Associate Editors who handle the peer review, they will be assigned at this stage.
5. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to researchers, the reviewer believes might be suitable. As answers are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained, typically this is three or more.
Possible reviewers evaluate the invitation against their own areas of expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They can then choose to accept or decline. If possible, they should propose alternate reviewers when declining.
7. Review is Conducted
The reviewer schedules time to read the article multiple times. The first read is used to establish an initial opinion on the work. If substantial issues are discovered at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the article without further investigation. Alternatively, they will read the document several times more, taking notes in order to construct a complete point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or with a request for revision (typically classified as major or minor) before being reconsidered.
8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
Before making a final decision, the handling editor considers all of the returned reviews. If the reviews are wildly different, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain a second opinion before reaching a decision.
9. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends the author a decision email that includes any relevant reviewer comments. The sort of peer review used by the journal will determine whether or not the comments are anonymous.
10. Next Steps
If the paper is approved, it is forwarded to production. If the article is rejected or returned for significant or minor changes, the handling editor should include constructive suggestions from the reviewers to help the author improve the work. At this point, reviewers should be notified of the outcome of their evaluation via email or letter. If the paper was returned for revision, the reviewers should expect a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, if only minor modifications are requested, the handling editor may conduct the follow-up review.