Steps of the process
High standards
Scholarly journals adhere to a set of standards when determining whether an article should be approved for publication. These standards include examination of the credentials of the author, and verification of their role as a scholar in the field. In addition the content is reviewed to determine if it is original research in a specialized field. Finally the quality of the text as written for an audience of scholars is considered. Referees must be impartial and therefore are not employed by the journal.
Timeline for review
One criticism of the Peer Review process has been the long turnaround time from article submission to publication in the journal. The time varies from organization to organization but is typically from several months to several years in length. Typically several reviewers receive the material to be reviewed, and are allowed time to complete the review, from several weeks to several months depending upon the circumstances of a particular publishing venue. Once reviews are completed and returned to the journal editor(s) a determination is made and a letter written to the author with a ranking and suggestions of next steps. As a new faculty member be sure to check the timeline for any publication you plan to submit a manuscript for, which is indicated in guidelines for submission.
Response from reviewers
Faculty members should anticipate the need for revisions or be prepared for rejection. It is rare for papers to be accepted “as is” after a first submission. It is more likely that one of the following responses will be returned, with suggestions for revision.
- Accept – very rare
- Accept with revisions – only need minor changes
- Revise and resubmit – interested but need some changes
- Reject and resubmit – still interested but need to rework
- Reject – inappropriate for venue or questionable quality
Read reviews carefully, understand the reasons for requests for revision or rejection, and respond constructively.
Revise and resubmit
It is recommended that authors do not put off revising, but set aside time to consider each suggestion carefully, then decide which changes to implement. If several reviewers make similar comments, it is likely important to respond to the feedback. If reviewers have conflicting advice, be thoughtful about how to address the comments that make sense, and how to explain why it is less appropriate to revise and why. Use a cover letter when the manuscript is resubmitted to explain the changes made, those not made, and why. Be diplomatic rather than defensive in the response. Accomplished faculty members look forward to feedback as an opportunity to make the manuscript better, explain their work more clearly, and engage in a dialogue with other professionals the field.
Steps of Peer Review
Peer Reviewed Journals in Education and Psychology
Social Welfare Library, University of California Berkeley
This site describes the peer review process, and distinguishes between peer reviewed journals and popular magazines with examples.
Peer Review Flow Chart
New England Peer Review, a consortium of Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont
This flow chart describes the major steps and decisions made from the time the review is scheduled until the decision is made.
Resubmitting a Paper
How to Publish in Scholarly Journals
Klinger, J., Scanlon, D. and Pressley, M. (2005). Educational Researcher
This article encourages faculty members to persist with a written piece, improve it with feedback, and continue to submit to publications until it finds a home, overcoming rejection along the way.
Insider Perspective on Peer Review
The Black Box of Peer Review
Inside Higher Education (March, 2009)
This article explores a new book by Michele Lamont, and outlines the basic lessons learned from her study of the peer review process.
How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment
Lamont, M. (2009). Harvard University Press
This book is the result of a study of the peer review evaluation system and describes the secretive and powerful world.
Inside an Academic Journal Editor’s World
Advanced Institute of Management (AIM) Research
Use this site to get a stronger sense of the key audience for your journal article, and look more closely at the editorial and review process.
Insiders Guide to Peer Review for Applicants
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health
This NIH site offers many resources for applicants to help them understand the peer review process, including the Insiders Guide.
Examples of Peer Review Timelines
CDC Peer Review of Research
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
This site outlines the CDC process for review of applications for funding.
Peer Review Timelines
National Ground Water Association
This site explains the process for review of proposals for the association journal, along with a timeline.
Forums
Topic: Journal Peer Review Methods and Timelines in Different Disciplines (2006)
This site offers a back and forth conversation comparing review processes at different journals.
Peer Review Timeline
American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists
This table clearly sets out a time frame for the review process for this AAPS journal.
