The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 10 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals. Explore what’s involved below.

1. Submission of paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal using the journal’s online submission system.

2. Editorial Office assessment

The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality, and merits. The EIC may reject the paper at this stage.

4. EIC assigns an Associate Editor (AE)

Some journals have Associate Editors (or equivalent) who handle peer review. If they do, they are assigned at this stage and are referred to as the “handling editor.”

5. Invitation to reviewers

The handling editor invites potential reviewers, sending additional invitations as needed until the required number—usually two, though this may vary by journal—is secured.

6. Response to invitations

Potential reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability, then accept or decline. If declining, they may suggest alternative reviewers.

7. The review is conducted

The reviewer dedicates time to read the paper multiple times. The first read forms an initial impression; if major issues are found, they may reject the paper at this stage. Otherwise, they take detailed notes during subsequent readings to prepare a point-by-point review, which is submitted along with their recommendation (revise, accept, or reject).

8. The journal evaluates the reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer for another opinion before deciding.

9. The decision is communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer comments. Comments will be anonymous if the journal follows a single-anonymous or double-anonymous peer review model. Journals that follow open or transparent peer review models will share the identities of the reviewers with the author(s).

10. 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 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.