Peer review

You want your published work to be the best it can possibly be, and that’s where peer review comes in.

Your work will be reviewed by experts in your field to assess its originality, thoroughness, and relevance to the chosen journal. There are several types of peer review, from traditional models like single-blind and double-blind review to newer models, such as open, transparent and transferable review.

The length of the peer review process varies by journal, so consult with the journal’s editors or staff for details of the process for that particular journal. Generally, the timeline is mentioned in the invitation email. The wording could be "The reviewers should abide by the date mentioned in the invitation letter. This is best peer review practice for the journal". Additionally, you can read our review confidentiality policy and check the review model for each journal we publish.

What is the reviewer looking for?

Originality, scientific significance, conciseness, precision, and completeness

In general, during their first read-through reviewers will be assessing your argument’s construction, the clarity of the language, and content. They will be asking themselves the following questions:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
• Is the argument well-constructed and clear? Are there any factual errors or invalid arguments?

A reviewer may also consider the following:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for any major issues, such as:

• Are there any major flaws?
• If experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
• Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust?
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
• Does it follow best practice and meet ethical standards? Are there any ethical issues?

The reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected, such as:

• Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled?

Possible outcomes of peer review

The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. In addition to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:

• The journal’s aims and audience
• The state of knowledge in the field
• The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal

The following represent the range of possible outcomes:

Accept:

• Accept without any changes: The journal will publish the paper in its original form.
• Accept with minor revisions: The journal will publish the paper after the author to make small corrections.
• Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): The journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors

Reject:

• The journal will not publish the paper.
• However, the editor may suggest better journal options for the paper to be published within Wiley. Alternatively, our Transfer Desk may provide a list of appropriate journals which match the scope of the manuscript submitted.

The decision outcome will be accompanied by any relevant reviewer reports and some commentary from the editor that explains why the decision has been reached. If the decision involves revision for the author, the required changes should be clearly stated in the decision letter and review reports. The author can then respond to each point in turn.

Common reasons for rejection

The manuscript fails the technical screening: Before manuscripts are sent to the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, many editorial offices first perform some checks. The main reasons that papers can be rejected at this stage are:

• The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal (submitting the same paper to multiple journals at the same time is not allowed)
• The manuscript is insufficiently well prepared; for example, lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references, and tables and figures
• The English is not of sufficient quality to allow a useful peer review to take place
• The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read
• The article does not conform to the most important aspects of the specific journal’s Author Guidelines

The manuscript does not fall within the Aims and Scope of the journal: The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journal

The manuscript is incomplete: For example, the article contains observations but is not a full study or it discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work

A clear hypothesis or research aim was not established or the question behind the work is not of interest in the field

The goal of the research was over-ambitious, and hence it could not realistically be achieved

There are flaws in the procedures and/or analysis of the data:

• The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics
• The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated
• The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field

The conclusions were exaggerated: The conclusions cannot be justified based on the rest of the paper

• The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid
• The data do not support the conclusions
• The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature

The research topic was of little significance:

• It is archival, or of marginal interest to the field; it is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors
• Findings are incremental and do not significantly advance the field
• The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible

Poor quality of writing: If the language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit of the paper can’t be assessed, then the paper will be rejected. It’s a good idea to ask a native English speaker to read the paper before submitting. Wiley Editing Services offers English Language Editing services, which you can use prior to submission if you are not confident in the quality of your English writing skills

What to do if your manuscript gets rejected

It is very common for papers to be rejected. Studies indicate that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review.

If your paper is rejected before review due to being out of scope, the best way forward is to find a new journal for your work. If it is rejected after review, you can use the feedback for improvements. Your options include:

Revise and resubmit to the same journal:

This is ideal if you are keen to publish in a particular journal and the editor indicated they’d accept your paper with revisions. If the editor has issued an outright rejection, you should respect this decision and submit to a different journal.

Revise and submit to a different journal:

Carefully consider and use the feedback from the first round of review to improve your manuscript. Make sure that you update details like the cover letter, referencing, and any other journal specific details before submitting to a different journal.

Submit unchanged to a different journal:

Submitting your manuscript unchanged to a different journal is not recommended. The suggestions made during the original review could lead to an improved paper, and ignoring reviewer suggestions wastes the effort of the initial review and the opportunity to improve your chances of acceptance at the next journal. Additionally, if by chance the same reviewer(s) assess your paper at the new journal (which is possible in a niche field) , their recommendation is unlikely to change. One exception would be if you are submitting to a journal that participates in a transfer program, where authors can agree to have their manuscript and reviews transferred to a new journal for consideration without making changes.

Appeal against the decision:

The journal should have a publicly described policy for appealing against editorial decisions. If you feel that the decision was based on an unfair assessment of your paper, or that there were major errors in the review process, then you are within your rights as an author to appeal. If you wish to appeal a decision, take the time to research that journal’s appeal process and review and address the points raised by the reviewer to prepare a reasoned and logical response.

Abandon the manuscript:

While it may be tempting to give up, this is not the best outcome for either you or the wider research community. Your data may be highly valuable to someone else or may help another researcher to avoid generating similar negative results.

Responding to the reviewer

Reviewers have given time and effort to provide constructive feedback

Reviewers are volunteers and have given up their own time to evaluate your paper to contribute to the research community. Reviewers very rarely receive formal compensation beyond recognition from the editors for the effort they have put in. While the author receives credit, reviewers play a crucial role in shaping the final paper. Although the comments you receive may feel harsh, most reviewers are also authors and therefore will be trying to highlight how the paper could be improved. So, it is important to be grateful for the time that both reviewers and editors have spent evaluating your paper – and to express this gratitude in your response.

The importance of good manners

Remain polite and thoughtful throughout in your interactions with reviewers and editors. You are much more likely to receive a positive response in return and this will help build a constructive relationship with both reviewer and editor in the future.

Don’t take criticism personally

Remember, it is very rare that a paper will be accepted without any form of revisions requested. It is the job of the editor and reviewer to make sure that the published papers are scientifically sound, factual, clear and complete. To achieve this, it will be necessary to draw attention to areas of improvement. While this may be difficult for you as an author, the criticism received is not intended to be personal.

Avoid personalizing responses

Stick to the facts and avoid personal attacks in your replies. It’s a good idea to wait 24 to 72 hours before responding to a decision letter—then re-read the email. This simple process will remove much of the personal bias that could pollute appeals letters written in rage or disappointment. If you respond in anger, or in an argumentative fashion, the editor and reviewers are much less likely to respond favorably.

Remember, even if you think the reviewer is wrong, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you are right! It is possible that the reviewer has made a mistake, but it is also possible that the reviewer was not able to understand your point because of a lack of clarity, or omission of crucial detail in your paper.

Evaluate reviewer comments and your response carefully

After reading the decision letter and comments, take a day to reassess them calmly. This pause helps neutralize your initial emotional response and allows you to understand the reviewers' requests more objectively.

Carefully evaluating the requested revisions will help you gauge the effort needed and prioritize your work. It will also enable you to craft a comprehensive response in your reply letter.

Some useful steps to consider:

1. Make a list: Write down all of the reviewer comments and number them.
2. Categorize the list as follows:
• Requests for clarification of existing text, addition of text to fill a gap in the paper, or additional experimental details
• Requests to reanalyze, re-express, or reinterpret existing data
• Requests for additional experiments or further proof of concept
• Requests you simply cannot meet
3. Plan your response: For each comment, note the action/response that you plan to take. For comments you cannot address, provide a logical explanation in your response for why the study is not, detrimentally affected by not making those changes.

Want to become a peer reviewer? Learn more about peer review, including how to become a reviewer in our Reviewer Resource Center.