Peer review is the quality filter of scholarly publishing: your paper is evaluated by experts in its field, and only if it passes that filter is it published. Understanding the process manages your expectations and helps you see why a paper might be rejected in advance. Here is how it works, step by step.
The process step by step
- Submission — you upload the paper to the journal system (main text, figures, cover letter, statements).
- Editor desk check (desk check) — the editor checks scope fit, formatting, language and ethics. If screened out here, you get a desk reject (without ever going to reviewers).
- Reviewer assignment — the editor invites 2–3 (sometimes more) reviewers from the field. Finding reviewers can take days/weeks.
- Evaluation — reviewers read the paper and write reports; strengths, weaknesses and suggestions.
- Editor decision — once reports arrive, the editor decides: accept / minor revision / major revision / reject — some journals also issue a reject and resubmit decision.
- Revision rounds — if revision is requested, you send the corrections with a response-to-reviewers letter; the process can take one or several rounds.
Types of review
| Type | Author visible? | Reviewer visible? |
|---|---|---|
| Single-blind | Yes (reviewer knows) | No |
| Double-blind | No (anonymous) | No (anonymous) |
| Open review | Yes | Yes (reports may be published) |
If you submit to a double-blind journal, remember to remove author information from the manuscript and file properties — otherwise you risk a desk reject.
Typical timelines and what's assessed
Timing varies by journal and field: the first decision can take a few weeks to a few months; with revisions, the whole process can run for months. Meanwhile you can track which stage your paper is in from the status codes ("With Editor", "Under Review", etc.) in the submission system. The main things reviewers focus on:
- Novelty and contribution — what does the work add to the literature?
- Methods — sound and reproducible?
- Results — supported by the data, no overclaiming?
- Literature — current and adequate?
- Presentation — language, structure, figures clear?
Turning the process to your advantage
Instead of treating peer review as a black box, if you answer the reviewer's questions before submission you shorten the rounds and lower the rejection risk. Peerfect's free pre-review engine does exactly that: it screens your paper through an editor's and reviewer's eyes in advance, shows the weak points, and recommends fitting journals. If knowing the process is half the battle, entering it prepared is the other half.