So, you’ve prepared a manuscript a.k.a. a ready-to-publish research article that you say will contribute to the scientific community, but internally you probably want it to help you progress in your professional career. That’s a common story among researchers, hence it’s important to understand how the peer-review process actually works in scientific journals.
The “peer” in the peer-review process is not a fruit but an academic who was also once a student researcher. They could be an early-career academic or someone who’s been in the game for a long time, for example: a full professor. What qualifies them to review your manuscript is their expertise in the specific area you’ve been working on. They might have published articles on or around your topic, meaning they understand the relevant literature, methodological challenges, theoretical foundations, implications, and so on. This expertise allows them to critically assess your research.
Their job is to make you cry and detest your life decisions for getting into this research business (maybe not). After going through your manuscript, they provide their assessment to the journal editor and recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or revised.
Let’s take a look at the different types of peer review that usually occur:
Single-blind (single-anonymised): Reviewers know the authors’ names and details, such as their university affiliations, but the authors do not know who reviewed their work. This has historically been one of the most common formats, although it is not necessarily the most robust because reviewers’ biases can creep in. For instance, they might view a competing theory or claim through the lens of their own position and, as a result, lose some degree of objectivity or fairness.
Double-blind (double-anonymised): In this format, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This is a common form of peer review in psychology journals because it can reduce bias related to an author’s reputation, institutional affiliation, or background. During submission, some journals also provide an “Excluded Reviewers” section where you can list specific academics or researchers you would prefer not to review your work. This is generally used to avoid potential conflicts of interest or situations where an impartial review may be difficult.
Open peer review: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are known to each other. The transparency of open peer review can encourage greater civility and accountability. However, reviewers may sometimes be reluctant to strongly criticize the work of more senior or accomplished academics, which can still leave room for status-related or social biases in the review process.
What is the actual review process like?
The editor first identifies a few potential reviewers based on their expertise and how closely their work aligns with your manuscript. They’ll usually send these reviewers an invitation email containing the manuscript title and abstract. If the paper interests them and they have the time, they accept the invitation. They can also decline, or occasionally leave the editor hanging for weeks (oops!) until the editor eventually moves on and invites someone else.
Typically two or three reviewers are assigned to your manuscript, they are given a deadline within which they are expected to submit their comments and recommendation. This is one of the reasons the whole publishing process can take so much time. Reviewers may miss deadlines, editors may need to send reminders, and the back-and-forth between reviewers, editors, and authors can continue for several rounds if revisions are requested and the revised manuscript needs to be reviewed again.
And before we put all the blame on reviewers, believe it or not, they are usually doing this for FREE. Yes, free! This is simply how most of academic peer review currently works. Why academics agree to do this unpaid work is a topic for another day and one we’ll definitely discuss in the future.
Eventually, after a few months or in some unfortunate cases, much longer - you finally receive a decision and at that point, simply having an answer can feel like a moment worth celebrating.
Ethical note: If you have submitted your manuscript to one journal, please do not simultaneously submit it to another. Simultaneous submission is considered unethical because editors and reviewers are investing significant time and effort in evaluating your work. Sending the same manuscript to multiple journals simply to increase your chances of getting published faster wastes those resources and violates the submission policies of most journals.
It can also lead to serious consequences, including manuscript rejection and, in some cases, restrictions on future submissions to that journal or publisher. If nothing else convinces you, just think about the poor reviewer spending their weekend reviewing a manuscript that you’ve already sent to three other journals: this should stop you!
Want full access to the Journal Selection Toolkit? Simply refer 3 people using your unique referral link; once all 3 sign up through your link, you’ll unlock the complete toolkit. To track your progress, log in to your Psyched for Research account using your email address, where you can see your referral link and current referral count. You can also join our Community from your account to connect, discuss research, ask questions and stay involved with other readers.
285 Free Prompts to Save Time
Your inbox isn't the problem. Neither are your meetings. It's the hours you spend on work AI could do in minutes.
285 copy-paste prompts: built for email, meetings, admin, and delegation. Each one has a clear role, a specific task, and a defined output.
No setup. No prompt engineering. Just copy, paste, and get your time back. Free when you subscribe to Mindstream.