In the world of science and research, work submitted for journal publication usually goes through a thorough peer review process. However, despite the important role it plays in ensuring the quality of published science, many students and early career researchers go through the process without really knowing what it entails. This article provides a quick round-up of the most common questions about peer review and provides answers that will help researchers sail through peer review smoothly.
What is peer review and how does it work?
Peer review is primarily an independent evaluation of a research manuscript by an expert in the field to assess the suitability of its publication in a journal. The peer review process holds significant value in ensuring the quality of research is at par with the journal’s high standards. When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it goes through an initial screening by the journal editor, who ensures it matches the aims and objectives of the journal, meets the minimum standards, follows set author guidelines, and is significant or interesting to the journal’s readers.
Research papers that do not meet these criteria are desk rejected, while those that pass this initial screening are sent to external peer reviewers for evaluation based on a set criteria. Peer reviewers critically evaluate the quality of research in terms of originality, clarity of content, completeness, significance of the topic, and contribution to the subject area and recommend changes based on their understanding. It is important to note, however, that the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript lies with the journal editor.
What are the different types of peer review?
Each journal adopts a particular type of peer review to evaluate research quality. The most common types of peer review are:
- Single-blind reviews: In this most common type of peer review, the names of reviewers are concealed from the author, but the reviewers are aware of the author’s name. This format makes it easier for reviewers to provide honest feedback without worrying about author reaction, but it also raises the risk of overly critical or biased (however unintentional) reviewer comments.
- Double-blind reviews: This type of peer review, where both the name of the reviewers and that of the authors are concealed from each other, was created to eliminate such bias. This format is commonly applied in the humanities and social sciences domain and provides for greater objectivity, with less risk of biased feedback.
- Open peer reviews: As the name suggests, this type of peer review is completely open. In an open review, the names of the reviewers and the authors are known to each other. Often, the article is published with the peer reviewer’s comments and the author’s response to the reviewer.
While these are the most common types of peer review, there are several other formats currently in play, including triple blind reviews, cascading reviews, post-publication reviews, among others. Find out more in this detailed article.
What are the main outcomes of peer review?
Peer reviewers critically analyze, give feedback, and make recommendations for the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript. The following are the possible outcomes of a peer review:
- The research paper is accepted without any change: In this case the editor informs the author of the acceptance of the paper, and it is published in the journal. However, this outcome is more the exception than the norm.
- The research paper is accepted with minor changes: Here, the author is required to carry out minor changes to the manuscript to make it ready for publication.
- The research paper is accepted after major revisions: The author is asked to make major revisions based on the peer reviewer’s recommendations. On satisfactory completion of these revisions, the manuscript will be published by the journal.
- The research paper is to be revised and re-submitted: In such cases the author has to make major changes, including additional research in some cases, based on detailed reviewer comments before resubmitting the manuscript for re-consideration. It may or may not be accepted for publication.
- The research paper is rejected: Along with a copy of the comments by the peer reviewers, the editor informs the author that the paper has been rejected. The following section provides some clarity on this aspect.
What leads to rejection after peer review?
Some of the most common reasons for rejection of the research paper after a peer review include:
- Lack of originality: If the topic of the research does not add anything new and interesting to the field or the findings are inconclusive, peer reviewers may recommend rejecting the paper.
- Issues in the methodology and analysis of data: These include problems in sampling, inadequate data to answer the research questions, unsound methodology or insufficient analysis.
- Dearth of logical presentation and completeness: The research paper lacks a logical flow of arguments and is not structured well. It may also be that the paper displays inconsistent writing with a random articulation of ideas.
- Irregularities in conclusion and data: In such cases, the conclusion fails to be supported by data and results of the research are in contradiction to the evidence presented in the paper.
- Weak writing and language: The language and presentation fail to communicate the arguments and ideas making it difficult for peer reviewers to evaluate the paper. It is always a good idea to get professional help with language editing before submitting an article.
What to keep in mind when responding to peer reviewers?
- Evaluate peer reviewer comments objectively: It is important that the comments by the reviewers are not taken as a personal offence or an affront. The comments should be seen in the context of making the paper a stronger finished product. It is advisable to allow a day or two before responding to peer reviewer comments. This will help to internalize the peer feedback questions or comments and respond to them in a more positive and constructive manner. Going through the feedback several times will also enable the author to understand the reviewer’s perspective and provide responses in a logical and reasonable way.
- Be polite in your responses: While authors may not always entirely agree with some of the comments by peer reviewers, it is important to remain polite when responding to the comments. An emotional and impolite response may not go down well and hurt your chances in the subsequent review process.
- Plan your response: Take time and categorize the concerns raised by the reviewers through their comments. Thereafter, frame your responses to each of the peer evaluation questions or comments and make sure you have addressed each in its totality.
The peer review can be a daunting process for most research authors. We hope the information provided helps give you more clarity on the most common questions about peer review. All the best!
