Peer review explained: what happens after you submit

Most journals take submissions through an online system such as Editorial Manager or ScholarOne. After you upload your files, the editorial office runs a technical check: are all the files there, is the formatting right, and are the declarations complete, such as conflicts of interest, funding and ethics approval?

Most systems also ask for a cover letter. Keep it short: the title, one or two sentences on what the paper found, why it suits this journal, and a statement that it is not under review anywhere else. If a file or declaration is missing, the office sends the paper back to you before any editor reads it, which costs days, so check everything before you press submit.

The paper then goes to an editor. In many journals the editor-in-chief assigns it to a handling editor who knows the subject. The status messages you see along the way describe where your paper is in this chain, though their exact wording varies from one system to another.

• With editor: an editor is reading the paper or looking for reviewers.
• Under review: reviewers have agreed and are reading it.
• Reviews complete: the reports are in and the editor is deciding.

Finding reviewers is often the slowest step. They are busy researchers who usually review without pay, and an editor may need to invite several people before two or three agree.

Before anyone else reads your paper, the editor decides whether it should go to reviewers at all. This first look usually covers four things.

1. Scope.Does the paper fit what the journal publishes and what its readers want?
2. Contribution.Is there something new here, stated clearly in the abstract and the introduction?
3. Basic quality.Are the methods described, the results presented clearly and the language readable?
4. Integrity.Many journals run a similarity check at this stage, using a service such as Crossref Similarity Check, and look at the ethics declarations.

If the answer to any of these is no, the editor may reject the paper without review. This is called a desk rejection. It is common, it is often quick, and it is usually about fit rather than your ability. You can revise the paper and send it to another journal straight away.

You can lower the chance of a desk rejection before you submit. Read the journal's aims and scope, look at the papers it has published in the last year or two, and follow its guide for authors on length, structure and reference style.

Kiran's paper went to three reviewers. Whether they knew his name depended on the journal's review model.

Single-blind review is common in the sciences. Double-blind review is common in the social sciences and humanities, and in many computer science conferences. The journal's guide for authors tells you which model it uses. If it is double-blind, remove anything that identifies you before you submit.

• Names: take the authors' names and affiliations out of the manuscript, and out of the file's properties too.
• Self-citations: cite your earlier work in the third person, as "earlier work showed [12]", not "in our earlier study [12]".
• Acknowledgements and funding: move them to the separate title page, if the journal asks for one.

Reviewers are experts in your field, usually two or three per paper, who read your work closely and write a report for the editor. Most do it without pay, as a service to their field. Their reports usually cover the same questions.

• Originality: does the paper add something new to what is already known?
• Methods: are the design, data and analysis sound, and described well enough to repeat?
• Evidence: do the results actually support the conclusions?
• Clarity: can a reader in the field follow the argument? A standard structure helps.
• References: is the relevant earlier work cited fairly and kept up to date?
• Ethics: are approvals, consent, data availability and conflicts of interest handled properly?

A typical report opens with a short summary of the paper, then lists the major concerns, which affect the conclusions, and the minor ones, such as unclear figures or typing errors. It ends with a recommendation to the editor. Reviewers can also send the editor comments that the authors never see.

Reviewers advise; the editor decides. When reviewers disagree, the editor weighs their reports and may invite another reviewer. Reviewers are also expected to keep your paper confidential while it is under review.

Kiran's three reports were very different. Reviewer 1 liked the study and asked for two extra figures. Reviewer 3 wanted more detail on the methods. Reviewer 2 had nineteen comments, several of them sharp.

Every decision letter uses one of a handful of standard outcomes. Each one tells you what to do next.

A revision decision usually comes with a deadline, often a few weeks for a minor revision and one to three months for a major one. If you need more time, ask the editorial office before the deadline passes. After a rejection, some publishers offer to transfer the paper, sometimes with its reviews, to another journal in the same group. Accept only if that journal suits your paper.

"Major revision is not a rejection," Dr. Bora told Kiran. "It is a list of what stands between your paper and acceptance." Outright acceptance on the first round is rare, so a revision decision is the usual path to publication.

Read the letter twice, then put it away for a day. Reviewer comments feel personal on the first reading and practical on the second.

Your answer goes in a response letter, submitted with the revised manuscript. Editors read it closely, and a clear one makes their decision easier.

1. List every comment.Copy all the comments into a table, number them, and note what each one asks for.
2. Answer point by point.Quote each comment, then give your reply directly under it. Never skip one, including the ones you disagree with.
3. Say what changed and where.Give the section, page and line numbers, and mark the changes in the revised manuscript as the journal asks.
4. Disagree politely, with evidence.If a request is wrong or impossible, explain why, respectfully, with data or references.
5. Thank the reviewers once.A short thank you at the start is enough. Spend the rest of the letter on the substance.

Comment 2.4: The flood maps are not checked against ground data. Response: Thank you for this point. We have added a comparison with field survey points in Section 3.4 (page 9, lines 210 to 226) and discuss its limits in Section 5.

Keep the tone calm even when a comment stings. Reviewer 2 had asked Kiran to reconsider his entire approach. Kiran explained, with two references, why the approach suited his data, and added a paragraph on its limitations. The editor accepted the explanation. If two reviewers ask for opposite changes, choose the one you can defend, and tell the editor which you followed and why.

Reviewers also often ask for more recent references. Fiberarticle can help with that search: it looks through arXiv, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar and Crossref together, can limit results to recent years, and shows the passage behind each point it writes, so you can check that a new reference really supports your text before you add it.

A first decision can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months, depending on the field and the journal. Many journals publish their average times on their websites. If the stated time has passed, a short, polite email to the editorial office asking about the status is acceptable.

If you believe a rejection rests on a clear factual error, such as a reviewer misreading your data, most journals let you appeal to the editor. Keep appeals for real mistakes, not for disagreement with a reviewer's opinion. In most cases, improving the paper and sending it to another journal is the quicker path.

Kiran sent his revision six weeks later with a twelve-page response letter. The second round came back as minor revision, and two weeks after that, the paper was accepted.