A companionable guide to what happens after submission, from editorial checks to peer review and final outcomes
1. Introduction: Beyond the Draft
Submitting a research paper is a major milestone, but it is only the beginning of the journey. The journal review process is where your work is evaluated for clarity, rigour, and contribution. Understanding this process reduces anxiety, improves responses to feedback, and increases chances of acceptance.
Key stages include:
- Initial editorial assessment
- Peer review
- Decision and feedback
- Revision or resubmission
- Final acceptance or rejection
See Elsevier: Journal Peer Review for an overview of the peer review process.
2. Editorial Assessment: The First Gate
2.1 Scope and Fit
Before peer review, editors check whether your paper fits the scope and aims of the journal:
- Does it address topics the journal publishes?
- Is the methodology appropriate for the readership?
- Does the novelty justify publication?
Papers outside the scope are often desk-rejected without peer review. This is not a reflection of quality, but of fit.
For guidance on selecting journals, see Journal Selector Tools.
2.2 Formatting and Compliance
Editors also check:
- Adherence to formatting guidelines (structure, references, figures)
- Ethical compliance (consent, conflict of interest, plagiarism)
- Completeness of required documents (cover letter, supplementary data)
Failure to comply can delay review or lead to desk rejection.
3. Peer Review: Evaluation by Experts
3.1 Purpose of Peer Review
Peer review ensures that published research is:
- Accurate: Methods, analysis, and conclusions are valid
- Original: Novel contribution to the field
- Relevant: Appropriate for the journal’s audience
It also helps authors improve clarity, interpretation, and presentation.
See Nature: Peer Review Explained.
3.2 Types of Peer Review
- Single-blind: Reviewers know the author, but the author does not know the reviewers
- Double-blind: Neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity
- Open review: Both parties’ identities are known, and reports may be published
Each type has advantages and challenges: bias, transparency, and accountability are key considerations.
3.3 Selecting Reviewers
Editors choose reviewers based on expertise, independence, and prior experience. The typical number of reviewers ranges from two to four.
Reviewers assess:
- Scientific validity
- Logical structure and coherence
- Ethical compliance
- Contribution to the field
4. Reviewer Reports: Understanding Feedback
4.1 Common Feedback Types
Reviewer feedback can include:
- Minor revisions: Small adjustments in clarity, grammar, or reference formatting
- Major revisions: Substantial changes in methods, data interpretation, or discussion
- Rejection: Paper cannot be published in the current journal
Feedback often includes constructive criticism, suggestions for additional experiments, and requests for clarifications.
See COPE: Responding to Reviewers.
4.2 How to Interpret Feedback
- Focus on substance, not tone
- Categorise comments: major vs minor
- Determine which changes strengthen the paper
Even critical or harsh reviews are intended to improve quality.
5. Responding to Reviewers
5.1 Preparing a Response Letter
- Address each comment individually
- Explain changes made, or justify why a change was not made
- Be polite, professional, and concise
A typical response structure:
- Comment from reviewer (quoted)
- Response from author (detailed explanation)
- Reference to revised manuscript location
Example:
Reviewer 1: “The statistical analysis for Figure 3 is unclear.”
Response: “We have clarified the statistical methods in the Methods section (lines 120–135) and added a supplementary table showing exact p-values.”
See Elsevier: Responding to Reviewers.
5.2 Making Changes in the Manuscript
- Highlight changes (track changes, coloured text, or annotations)
- Ensure revised sections are clear and consistent
- Double-check references, figures, and tables after changes
6. Revision Cycles
- Minor revisions may require one round
- Major revisions often require multiple rounds
- Editors may consult reviewers again after revision
Maintain organisation and professionalism during repeated revisions. Timely, thorough responses demonstrate respect for the process.
7. Accept, Reject, or Revise
7.1 Possible Outcomes
- Accept without changes: Rare, usually only for minor tweaks
- Accept with minor revisions: Most positive outcome
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions): Encouraging, but requires significant work
- Reject: Not aligned with the journal, insufficient novelty, or methodological concerns
7.2 Handling Rejection
- Consider feedback objectively
- Revise and submit to another journal
- Sometimes, combining revisions with reformatting improves acceptance chances
- Avoid taking rejection personally; it is part of scholarly growth
See Nature: Dealing with Rejection.
8. Open Access and Ethical Considerations
- Journals may offer open access for wider dissemination
- Be aware of publication fees and funding support
- Maintain ethical standards throughout: authorship, conflicts of interest, and data integrity
See DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals for reputable open access options.
9. Timing and Expectations
- Initial editorial assessment: 1–2 weeks
- Peer review: 4–12 weeks (varies by field and journal)
- Revision and resubmission: 2–6 weeks
- Acceptance and production: 2–8 weeks
Understanding realistic timelines helps plan dissemination and career milestones.
10. Summary and Next Steps
Lecture 4 has explored:
- Editorial assessment and scope checks
- Peer review types and processes
- Understanding and responding to reviewer feedback
- Revision cycles and outcomes (accept, revise, reject)
- Open access, ethics, and timing
Next, Lecture 5: Revision, Resubmission, and Open Access will provide strategies for maximising acceptance chances, understanding resubmission nuances, and selecting publication options that broaden your research impact.
Support the Archive
This archive is freely shared as a communal act of care.
If you’d like to support its continuation, consider purchasing a companion PDF set for £1 per lecture, with an associated quiz, via Payhip, with the final price depending on the number of lectures in the set, available only once the full series is complete.