The Peer Review Process: Where the Jury is on Your Side
Nan Knight

Printer-friendly version

For most scientists and even for nonscientists working in the scientific setting, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a prerequisite to promotion, tenure, and additional research funding. Job descriptions often contain explicit requirements for number and type of publications required for advancement.

Yet the process continues to inspire some anxiety. Even when you have a terrific research project, unimpeachable data, and groundbreaking conclusions, you worry. Who will read your manuscript? Will they understand the point you're trying to make? How much time will pass before you find out if it's accepted or rejected? What criteria are being used to evaluate your submitted materials?

The following summary of the peer review process assumes that you selected a publication in which you hope to publish your results, that you have written your article according to the guidelines of that publication, and that you are ready to submit a finished work.

How The Peer Review Process Works

Most submissions to peer-reviewed scientific journals are unsolicited. Authors send editor(s) manuscripts hoping for acceptance in the publication. Editors rely on colleagues who serve as referees in deciding which articles are most suitable. Journal editors sometimes request articles on designated topics from specific authors. However, even these articles usually will be peer reviewed for scientific content.

Journal staff members log in the date on which manuscripts are received. This is more than tidy record keeping; when disputes over scientific priority arise, such dates can take on legal and ethical significance for the author(s) and for the journal.

Most journals include a preliminary scan phase, in which staff members review the form and content of the manuscript. Articles that clearly are not pertinent to the subject matter of the journal or that are intended for a different audience are rejected and the authors notified. Many journals reject articles in which the use of English is so nonstandard that ideas and facts cannot be understood. (This should not discourage those for whom English is a second language. Some journals suggest services that rewrite for a fee. Editors often offer to consider a manuscript again after it has been rewritten in standard English.)

Some journals with hundreds of monthly submissions employ staff members or consultants who summarize content in one or two paragraphs for senior editorial review. Writing your abstract clearly, so that it conveys with concision your main points, will ensure that it makes it through this funnel point intact.

Small journals may have only one editor, and large journals may have several editors, each of whom specializes in one area of the field. Editors select a number of manuscripts each month to be sent out for peer review. Manuscripts may be reviewed by as few as two and as many as five scientists with established expertise and records of publication in the pertinent subject matter.

The Jury Is Blindfolded (For The Most Part)

All peer reviewers are blinded to the names of the author(s), the institutions or companies at which the work was done, and any other identifying material that may have been submitted originally with the manuscript. In theory, this frees the reviewer from any possibility that his or her perceptions of the scientific work might be tinged by positive or negative opinions of the author(s) or other work from the same site. In fact, if the area of expertise is fairly narrow and the subject matter of your paper is only under investigation by a few researchers, your peer reviewers may have a pretty good idea of your identity. However, the formality of the peer review process helps to facilitate as much as possible an objective and realistic assessment of manuscripts.

This realistic assessment is also aided by the fact that blinding works both ways: you will not know who has reviewed your paper. Again, if your field is small, the tenor of the comments may lead you to suspect the identity of one or more of your reviewers. Even if you're fairly sure, tradition says to be circumspect.

Most comments and assessments from reviewers are still completed on hard copy (although electronic peer-review is on the rise). Your reviewer will write comments directly onto the manuscript and complete a short questionnaire from the journal, rating the article on points such as clarity, originality, quality of scientific work, contribution to the field, and overall suitability for publication in the journal.

What's Taking So Long?

A month has passed since you submitted your manuscript. Two months. Sometimes more. You call the editorial offices only to discover that your manuscript is "still in the peer review process." What's going on?

The initial review may have taken several weeks. The assignment process and actual transmittal of manuscripts takes more time. Individual referees are given anywhere from a week to a month to comment on manuscripts. Some referees write their comments directly onto their copy of the manuscript. Others make separate lists of comments and additional queries for the author. The manuscript must then be returned to the journal's editorial offices, where it takes its place in a queue of other articles. Questionnaires are tallied and comments are collated, so that the editors can make a final assessment.

On some journals, three or more months may pass before you hear the decision on your manuscript. (This delay is one of the reasons that many refereed journals include non-peer-reviewed news sections, so that topics of interest can be covered immediately.)

In This Court, It's Not "Guilty" Or "Innocent"

The envelope is in your mailbox. You may think that the answer will be either "accepted" or "rejected," but, like other aspects of the process, it's seldom as simple as that. The answer can be:

Accepted, without changes: A real rarity in scientific publishing. Even the best scientific work, reported in crystal-clear prose and with the most stunning images, can be improved by suggestions from the editor and reviewers. Trust their judgments.

Accepted, with changes: Requested changes may be as simple as clarifying a sentence or a procedure for a reviewer. Sometimes, however, editors may request a complete rewrite. Your results may be important and deserve publication, but your data might be better organized or presented differently. You will have a chance to read and respond to all comments from reviewers.

Rejected: Most editors will tell you precisely why your article has been rejected in the peer review process. Sometimes a manuscript may be rejected because it covers a topic that the journal recently featured in a special issue. Often articles that detail excellent scientific work are rejected simply because the reviewers do not believe the work adds new information to the field. And, although it's painful, if your article was rejected because it was not judged to be worthy of publication, this is information you can turn to your own advantage in the long run.

Responding To Peer Reviews

First, breathe deeply and look at the big picture. Criticism, whether as part of requested changes or an outright rejection, is a part of the process. Moreover, this was anonymous, so it's not directed personally at you or your coauthors.

If your article was accepted: You will need to consider carefully every comment and query. As journal referees and editors would be the first to tell you, they aren't always right. Experienced journal authors often make photocopies of comments, number them sequentially through the article or correspondence, and key these to numbered responses on a separate page or pages. Your answers should be brief, clear, and address the specific subject of the comment or inquiry. Don't hesitate to point out instances in which the reviewer may have misunderstood or in which the reviewer has made erroneous assumptions. However, remember that your readers may do the same. You may need to reword or insert clarifications in the text.

The tone of the letter accompanying your responses should be both friendly and professional and indicate your willingness to work with the journal on any additional information or input needed in the publication process. Between acceptance and publication, you will see your article in the proofing stage. You may be called on to answer additional questions from the editing staff. Keep your cool during these stages in which you may find small changes in wording. The journal's goal is the same as yours: to publish your article with clarity and concision and in a timely manner.

If your article was rejected: If you read the comments and decide that the referees were unfair or in error, you should speak up. It's perfectly acceptable to call the editor to discuss the rejection. However, you may be more successful in maintaining an even tone and expressing yourself clearly if you itemize your concerns in a letter. Most editors will respond quickly.

In rare instances, you may believe that the reviewer was unprofessional in his or her comments. Most editors will not allow sarcastic or demeaning remarks to be passed back to authors. In fact, a good editor will take these as a sign to drop a reviewer from the roster of referees. When such comments appear on the author copy, you may choose to provide the editor with substantive, detailed responses. But choose your battles carefully. Your manuscript may simply not be up to journal standards, and pushing too far won't win friends at either the journal or among your scientific colleagues.

Consider A Retrial

Save your letter of rejection (even if that means taping together all the pieces you tore it into). Look carefully at the reasons the editor has given for rejection. Decide whether a simple fix--or a more substantial rewrite--could make the article suitable for publication in another refereed journal in your field. If not, consider reworking your manuscript for a non-peer-reviewed journal or for a public audience. Just because you've been rejected by one journal does not mean that your work is inferior or that your research does not merit a wider audience.

The Jury Gets Friendlier

Many scientists have CVs listing authorship and co-authorship on hundreds of articles in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Their secret is that publishing in refereed journals gets easier the more they do it. They submit articles to the same four or five journals and keep each journal's style guide and author directions handy. They remember what each journal is looking for in tone and content and keep in mind the audience the journal reaches. They respond quickly and reliably to comments, queries, and requests for additional information.

Most important, these authors make the process of preparing articles for publication an integral part of the scientific endeavor, readying manuscripts as quickly as possible after the completion of specific segments of work. The result is the submission of fresh and relevant data that is appropriate for publication, adequately explained and supported, and arranged in a format consistent with the targeted journal's style. Such articles are seldom rejected.

Fast Forward: Speeding Publication Online

Increasing numbers of scientific journals are available online. Many are using the electronic environment to create a revolution in publication turnaround times. Some traditional all-hardcopy journals have lag times of as much as a year between initial submission and final publication. Scientists have long complained that data becomes stale and careers are sometimes compromised by such delays.

Some journals now use the Web to facilitate the publication process, now completing it in less than a month. "Our peer reviewers know that we want their responses in one week," says Carol Carr, Managing Editor of Organic Letters, which appears in both online and hardcopy versions. "As much as possible, we use the Web and e-mail for submissions, galleys, and queries." The result can be as little as 2 weeks between submission and publication on the Web. "The actual process and integrity of peer review remain the same," says Carr.

Several scientific editors advise that you check out online publications thoroughly before submitting an article. You'll want to make sure that the publication is reputable and that it adheres to the traditional journal standards.

Nan Knight is a freelance science writer and editor whose credits include Smithsonian exhibits, Discovery Channel Web sites, and a wide range of publications on radiation in medicine.

Related Reading

The Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication featured 3 days for presentations from the podium, including 41 presentations of new research into peer review and all aspects of scientific publication.

"Implementing Peer Review On The Net: Scientific Quality Control In Scholarly Electronic Journals" by Stevan Harnad argues that peer review can and should be implemented on the Net, and hierarchically, much as it was in paper, generating a pyramid of periodicals, with the highest quality ones at the top and the unrefereed vanity press at the bottom.

Also by Stevan Harnad, "The Invisible Hand of Peer Review" (Exploit Interactive, issue 5, April 2000) offers a proposal for online-only refereed journals.

In January 2001, after three years of discussion, the editors of journals published by the American Chemical Society issued a statement summing up their position on electronic preprints. The issues surrounding the debate were summarized in the January 15, 2001 issue of Chemical & Engineering News and the full text of the policy is available on the ACS Publications Web site.