Peer review and editorial decision making at journals

Peer Review and Editorial Decision Making at

Journals

Helping you get published

The peer review process is essentially a quality control

mechanism. It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly

works, and its objective is to ensure a high quality of published

science. However, peer reviewers do not make the decision to

accept or reject papers. At most, they recommend a decision.

At peer-reviewed journals, decision-making authority rests

solely with journal editors or the journal’s editorial board.

Peer Review and Editorial Decision Making at Journals

solely with journal editors or the journal’s editorial board.

Indeed, it is the journal editor who is considered to be central

to the decision making process.1

Journal decision-making process

Typically, after a paper is submitted to a journal, a journal

editor screens the manuscript and decides whether or not to

send it for full peer review. Only after clearing the initial

screening is the manuscript sent to one or more peer

reviewers.


reviewers.

Finally, journal editors or the journal’s editorial board consider

the peer reviewers’ reports and make the final decision to

accept or reject the manuscript for publication.


Author

submits

manuscript

Journal editor

screens

manuscript

Manuscript is

peer reviewed

Journal

editor/editorial

board decides

whether to

publish

Author is

informed of

decision

Some

manuscripts are

rejected before

peer review


Initial screening

Approximately 3 million manuscripts are submitted to journals every year.1 Given the large

volume of manuscript submissions, more and more journals follow a policy of screening

papers before sending them for full peer review. During the initial screening, journal editors

mainly check the following:

Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope and aim and will it be of interest to the readership?

Is the manuscript of minimum acceptable quality ? Is the content and writing good enough to make it worth reviewing?

Is the manuscript compliant with the journal’s instructions for authors?


Journal editors typically look at hundreds of manuscripts a year. One of the first items

that editors will look at is the cover letter, and they may not get further than the cover

letter if the study does not seem interesting enough.

Therefore, it is imperative that authors craft a well-written cover letter that highlights

the significance and strength of their research as well as provides a good reason why the

manuscript is a good fit for the journal. Editors will then go through the abstract and may

even skim through the introduction, figures and tables, or other sections of the paper to

determine whether the manuscript passes their quality threshold.determine whether the manuscript passes their quality threshold.

Benefits of initial screening:

1. If the manuscript clearly lies outside the scope of the journal, then a rapid rejection

allows the author to quickly find and submit their manuscript to another journal.

2. Peer reviewers’ time is wasted when they have to spend time evaluating and giving

feedback for a manuscript of clearly inferior quality.


Did you know ?Journal editors reject anywhere between 6% to 60% of submitted

manuscripts at the initial screening stage.2 One study found that on manuscripts at the initial screening stage.2 One study found that on

average, 21% of submissions are rejected during the initial review

by journal editors across disciplines.3


Peer review

Generally, a minimum of 2 peer reviewers (up to 6) are chosen for the peer review. Peer

reviewers are ideally experts in their field. Journals usually build a pool of peer reviewers

that have a good track record of producing high quality reviews. Or they may scan the

bibliography to identify potential reviewers or contact researchers they met at conferences

and seminars.1Many journals will first ask potential reviewers whether they are willing to

review the manuscript before assigning them as reviewers.

Editors have to be careful to select reviewers who have sufficient subject matter expertise

to do justice to the manuscript. Therefore, highly technical papers or papers from niche

subject areas may take longer to review, because it may take editors some time to locate

appropriate reviewers.


Some journals give authors the option of

recommending preferred and non-preferred

reviewers. Authors would do well to take

advantage of this option if available as it can

expedite the review process, since it saves the

journal time in looking for reviewers.

Furthermore, studies have found that author

recommended peer reviewers tend to

recommend acceptance more often than journal

recommended reviewers.4,5

Common types of peer review

Single blind: names of reviewers are not

revealed to authors

Double blind: names of reviewers and recommended reviewers.4,5

The peer review is completed once all the

reviewers send the journal a detailed report with

their comments on the manuscript and their

recommendation. Typically, journals ask

reviewers to complete their reviews within 3-4

weeks.6 However, few journals have a

mechanism to enforce the deadline, which is why

it can be hard to predict how long the peer

review process will take.6

Double blind: names of reviewers and

authors are not revealed to each other

Open peer review: Names of authors

and reviewers are revealed to each

other


Final decision

The journal editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer

reviewers and arrives at a decision. The following are the most common decisions that

are made:

1. accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its

original form

2. accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks 2. accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and asks

the author to make small corrections

3. 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

4. revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the

paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes

5. reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or

reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions


Final decision

The first option (accept without any changes) is rare.

The second decision (accept with minor revisions) is typically the best outcome authors

should hope for.

Once a journal rejects a paper outright, authors are well advised not to resubmit to the

same journal. same journal.

If the journal wanted to reconsider the paper, they would have issued a conditional

rejection.

An outright rejection means that the journal thinks the paper will not meet its publication

standards or interests even after heavy revisions.


Editor Speak

In general, I classify manuscripts into three groups: 1) excellent-quality work that

makes a contribution, 2) satisfactory-quality work that may make a contribution, makes a contribution, 2) satisfactory-quality work that may make a contribution,

and 3) poor-quality work that makes no contribution. Categories 1 and 3 are dealt

with quickly, with the majority of manuscripts in category 2. This group of

manuscripts takes time and reflection before a decision can be made.7- A former

journal editor


Do peer reviewers and editors always agree on what’s worthy

of publication?

Editors’ decision-making policies vary: some reject when even

one peer reviewer recommends rejection, some when the

majority recommend rejection, and some only when all

reviewers recommend rejection.2

It is common for peer reviewers to give conflicting feedback on It is common for peer reviewers to give conflicting feedback on

the same manuscript.8,9 One journal editorial went as far as to

say “Unanimity between reviewers is rare.”10

In cases of conflicting feedback, the journal editor may choose

to send the paper to a third reviewer before arriving at a

decision, and the author may have to wait longer for the peer

review process to be completed.


Do peer reviewers and editors always agree on what’s worthy

of publication?

In reality, reviewers tend to recommend acceptance more often

than rejection.10 Thus, journal editors end up rejecting many

papers that peer reviewers actually recommended for

publication, with their decisions based on their own opinions of

the papers’ publication worthiness. The role of peer review is the papers’ publication worthiness. The role of peer review is

considered to be helping authors improve their manuscripts

rather than deciding whether they should be published, which is

the journal editor’s job.


Journal Speak

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the

information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct

the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it

may be acceptable.11 - Nature


Conclusion

Because of a large number of submissions, top-tier journals are

often forced to reject even high quality manuscripts for various

reasons, like a large number of submissions or lack of fit with

the journal’s editorial focus.2 While reviewers and editors easily

agree on what is clearly not acceptable for publication, deciding

what is worthy of publication is a tougher challenge.12 Finally,

journal editors make decisions to accept or reject papers based journal editors make decisions to accept or reject papers based

on their opinion of the papers’ publication worthiness and

reviewers’ comments.10

Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejections

References

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011). Peer review in scientific

publications Vol 1. House of Commons: London, UK.

2. Schultz DM (2010). Rejection rates for journals publishing in the atmospheric sciences. Bulletin of

the American Meteorological Society, 91(2): 231-243. doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2908.1.]

3. Thomson Reuters (2011). Increasing the quality and timeliness of peer review: A report for scholarly

publishers [white paper]. Available at: http://scholarone.com/media/pdf/peerreviewwhitepaper.pdf

4. Hutchings A (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between

peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA, 295(3): 314-317.peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA, 295(3): 314-317.

5. Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen

by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4: 13. doi: 10.1186/1741-

7015-4-13.

6. Association of Learned and Professional Society (2000). Current practice in peer review. Results of a

survey conducted during Oct/Nov 2000. Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers:

Worthing, UK.

Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejections

References

7. Samet JM (1999). Dear author-advice from a retiring editor. American Journal of Epidemiology,

150(5): 433-436.

8. Rothwell PM & Martyn CN (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is

agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain,

123(9): 1964–9.

9. Ray JG (2002). Judging the judges: The role of journal editors (editorial). Quarterly Journal of

Medicine, 95: 769-74.

10. Coronel R (1999). The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovascular Research, 10. Coronel R (1999). The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making. Cardiovascular Research,

43(2): 261-64. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(99)00177-7.

11. Nature. Peer-review policy. Last accessed August 4, 2011. Available at:

http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html

12. Howard L & Wilkinson G (1999). Peer review and editorial decision-making. Neuroendocrinology

Letters, 20(5): 256-260.

Connect with us on:

http://www.facebook.com/Editage

http://www.twitter.com/Editagehttp://www.twitter.com/Editage

http://www.linkedin.com/company/cactus-communications

Peer review and editorial decision making at journals

Education