Introduction:
Peer review is a crucial component of the scholarly publishing process, ensuring the quality and credibility of scientific research. This article aims to provide an in-depth exploration of the peer review process, breaking down its key stages with the help of diagrams.
Submission:
The journey begins when a researcher submits their manuscript to a scholarly journal. The submitted work typically includes original research, methodology, results, and conclusions. At this stage, the editor performs an initial assessment to ensure the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and standards.
A flowchart depicting the submission stage with the researcher submitting the manuscript to the journal, and the editor conducting an initial assessment.
Editorial Evaluation:
After submission, the editor assigns the manuscript to one or more experts in the field, known as peer reviewers. These reviewers evaluate the paper’s quality, validity, and significance. The editor may also assess the fit of the manuscript with the journal’s focus.
The editor identifies suitable reviewers based on their expertise in the subject matter. Reviewers are typically researchers or scholars with relevant experience who can provide constructive feedback.
A diagram showcasing the peer reviewer assignment process, where the editor selects reviewers based on expertise and assigns them the manuscript for evaluation.
Peer Review:
Reviewers critically analyze the manuscript, assessing its methodology, data analysis, results, and overall contribution to the field. They provide detailed feedback, identify strengths and weaknesses, and may recommend revisions or reject the manuscript.
A visual representation of the peer review stage, with reviewers thoroughly evaluating the manuscript and providing feedback.
Editorial Decision:
Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editor makes an editorial decision. This decision could be acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, or rejection. The editor conveys this decision to the author along with the reviewers’ comments.
A flowchart depicting the editorial decision-making process, where the editor considers reviewer feedback and decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.
Conclusion:
Understanding the peer review process is essential for both authors and readers. This comprehensive guide, enriched with diagrams, sheds light on the intricate stages involved, emphasizing the collaborative effort to maintain the integrity and excellence of scholarly research.
References
Smith, J., & Brown, A. (Eds.). (2018). “Peer Review in Scientific Publishing.” Cambridge University Press.
Godlee, F., Jefferson, T., & Smith, R. (Eds.). (2006). “Peer Review in Health Sciences.” BMJ Books.
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007). “Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, MR000016.
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., … & Crick, T. (2017). “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.” F1000Research, 6, 1151.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2022). “COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.” Available at: https://publicationethics.org/
Sense About Science. (2022). “Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts.” Available at: https://senseaboutscience.org/
National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2003). “Guidelines for the Conduct of Research in the Intramural Research Program at NIH: Peer Review and the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research.” Available at: https://oir.nih.gov/
European Association of Science Editors (EASE). (2018). “EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English.” Available at: https://ease.org.uk/
Authorship Credits:
Kaushiki Ishwar is a 3rd-year Philosophy student at Miranda House and a Research Intern at Mandonna
Graphics Credits
Sabia is a Graphic Designing Intern at Mandonna
