Summary
For many authors, what happens inside a journal after they click “submit” is a complete mystery. Understanding how editors and peer reviewers actually make decisions can reduce anxiety, help you interpret editorial letters correctly, and show you how to prepare your manuscript more strategically. Although individual journals differ in their policies and practices, most reputable peer-reviewed journals follow a broadly similar three-stage evaluation process: technical and editorial screening, external peer review, and final editorial assessment.
This article explains each of these stages in detail. First, it describes the initial screening where administrative staff and editors check that submissions are complete, within scope, correctly formatted and written in clear English, and free from plagiarism or obvious methodological flaws. Next, it explores the peer review process: how reviewers are selected, what they scrutinise (from title and methods to statistics, ethics, and references), and the kinds of recommendations they make. Finally, it shows how editors interpret sometimes conflicting reviews and balance them against journal constraints such as readership, space, priorities, and ethical standards to reach a decision—reject, revise, or accept.
Throughout, the article emphasises what authors can do at each stage to improve their chances of success: following author guidelines precisely, framing a strong cover letter, making research methods and results transparent, and ensuring the manuscript is well written, accurately referenced, and professionally presented. By seeing peer review from the editor’s side of the desk, you can respond more effectively to feedback, anticipate potential objections, and prepare a manuscript that moves smoothly through the decision-making process.
📖 Full-Length Article (Click to collapse)
How Journal Editors and Peer Reviewers Make Decisions at Journals
Introduction: What Really Happens After You Submit?
For most researchers, the journal submission system can feel like a black box. You upload your manuscript, complete endless forms, click “submit,” and then wait—sometimes for weeks, sometimes for many months. When the decision finally arrives, it may be a brief “desk rejection,” a long set of reviewer reports, or an acceptance with conditions. But how, exactly, did the journal arrive at that outcome?
The reality is that decisions at reputable scholarly journals are rarely made by a single individual. Instead, they usually result from multiple layers of assessment involving editorial assistants, technical staff, subject-area editors, external peer reviewers, and often the editor-in-chief. Each layer has different responsibilities and focuses on different aspects of your manuscript: compliance with guidelines, scientific quality, originality, clarity, ethical standards, and suitability for the journal’s readership.
Although each journal has its own specific procedures, most peer-reviewed academic and scientific journals follow a broadly similar three-stage process:
- Technical and editorial screening before peer review.
- The external peer review process.
- Editorial assessment of reviewer reports and the final decision.
In the sections that follow, we explore each stage in detail, showing how manuscripts are evaluated, who is involved, and how authors can improve their chances of progressing from one stage to the next.
Stage 1: Technical and Editorial Screening
The first decision point occurs before your manuscript is ever sent to external reviewers. Because journals receive far more submissions than they can possibly publish—and because peer reviewers are in short supply—most publishers use rigorous pre-review screening to filter out unsuitable manuscripts early.
1.1 Administrative and Technical Checks
When you submit a manuscript, the first people to see it may be editorial assistants or administrative staff. Their initial tasks are largely technical but essential:
- Confirming that all required files have been uploaded (main text, figures, tables, supplementary data, cover letter, ethics statements, etc.).
- Checking for corrupt or unreadable files.
- Verifying that author and affiliation details are complete and correctly entered.
- Ensuring that the manuscript has been anonymised if the journal uses double-blind review.
- Running a similarity check to identify possible plagiarism or overlapping publications.
At this stage, serious technical problems—such as missing ethical approvals, grossly incomplete submissions, or obvious plagiarism—may lead to immediate rejection or a request to resubmit corrected files.
1.2 Compliance With Author Guidelines
Journals publish detailed instructions for authors for a reason: consistency in structure, referencing, length, and formatting helps editors and reviewers work efficiently. Before a manuscript is considered for review, technical staff or junior editors may assess:
- Whether the manuscript follows the journal’s required structure (for example, IMRaD: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).
- Whether it adheres to word limits for the main text and abstract.
- Whether references follow the correct style and are formatted consistently.
- Whether tables, figures, and captions meet resolution and labelling requirements.
- Whether the language is sufficiently clear to permit fair evaluation.
A paper that clearly reports high-quality research but completely ignores the journal’s formatting rules may be returned to the author for revision or even rejected outright. Conversely, editors may allow minor deviations if the paper addresses a topic of exceptional interest.
1.3 Editorial Screening for Scope, Quality, and Originality
Once a submission passes technical checks, it is usually assigned to an editorial board member—often a handling editor or associate editor—who performs an editorial screening. Here, the focus shifts from mechanical details to the paper’s content:
- Scope: Does the topic fall within the journal’s stated remit?
- Originality: Does the paper offer new data, insights, or methods?
- Significance: Is the research important enough for the journal’s audience?
- Methodological soundness: Are the study design and analyses broadly appropriate?
- Clarity of presentation: Is the writing clear enough to allow reviewers to assess the work?
At this stage, many manuscripts receive what authors know as a desk rejection—a decision to decline without sending the paper to external reviewers. Common reasons include poor fit with the journal, lack of novelty, serious methodological concerns, or language that is too unclear to evaluate. In a busy editorial office, following all the journal’s guidelines, writing clearly, and submitting an excellent cover letter that highlights the paper’s contribution can make a crucial difference.
A cover letter that briefly explains why the research is important, what is new about it, and why it is a good fit for the journal helps editors see the manuscript’s potential before diving into the full text.
Stage 2: The Peer Review Process
If a manuscript passes technical and editorial screening, it moves on to external peer review. This is where experts in the field scrutinise the work and provide detailed feedback and recommendations. Peer review is central to quality control in academic publishing, but it is also highly variable: different reviewers focus on different aspects and bring different expectations.
2.1 Selecting Reviewers
The handling editor is usually responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers. They may:
- Draw from the journal’s reviewer database.
- Search recent literature for authors who have published on related topics.
- Consider reviewers suggested (or excluded) by the manuscript’s authors.
- Check for conflicts of interest, such as close collaboration, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships.
Most journals aim for at least two independent reviews; some may seek three or more. In highly specialised fields, finding suitable reviewers can be difficult and time-consuming, which contributes to long review times.
2.2 What Peer Reviewers Evaluate
Reviewers receive the manuscript and, in many cases, specific review forms or guidelines. Although journals differ in what they ask reviewers to comment on, most reviewers will pay close attention to:
- Title and abstract: Do they accurately reflect the content and significance?
- Introduction: Is the research question clear and well grounded in the literature?
- Methods: Are the design, sampling, instruments, and analyses appropriate and sufficiently detailed for replication?
- Results: Are findings presented clearly, with appropriate statistics, tables, and figures?
- Discussion: Are the interpretations justified by the data? Are limitations acknowledged?
- Originality and contribution: Does the paper add something new and meaningful to the field?
- Ethics and transparency: Are ethical approvals, funding, and conflicts of interest properly reported?
- References: Are they up-to-date, accurate, and relevant?
- Language and style: Is the paper written in clear, professional English?
In principle, reviewers can comment on any part of the manuscript. They may highlight factual errors, logical inconsistencies, gaps in the literature review, questionable statistical methods, or inappropriate conclusions. They may also suggest additional analyses, references, or improvements to tables and figures.
2.3 Types of Reviewer Recommendations
At the end of their report, reviewers are typically asked to make a recommendation to the editor. Common options include:
- Reject without reconsideration – The manuscript is not suitable for the journal, either due to flaws in the research or poor fit with scope.
- Reject but encourage resubmission elsewhere – The journal is not the right venue, but the paper may be suitable for other outlets.
- Major revisions – Substantial changes are required to methods, analyses, interpretation, or structure.
- Minor revisions – The manuscript is sound overall, but requires small corrections or clarifications.
- Accept as is – This is extremely rare; most papers require at least minor changes.
Although reviewers’ recommendations are influential, they do not make the final decision. They provide expert opinions and detailed comments, but it is the editor who must weigh these opinions and reach a conclusion.
Stage 3: Editorial Assessment and Final Decision
Once all reviewer reports are received, the editor must interpret them and decide the manuscript’s fate. This stage is complex because reviewers rarely agree completely, and their comments must be considered in the context of the journal’s priorities and constraints.
3.1 Weighing Reviewer Opinions
Editors read each review carefully, looking for:
- Points of consensus—problems that multiple reviewers identify.
- Major vs. minor concerns.
- Evidence of bias or misunderstanding.
- Recommendations that are feasible for the authors to address.
Reviewers may praise aspects that others criticise. One might find the methods “elegant,” while another calls them “inadequate.” The editor’s task is to identify which concerns are most important and decide whether the manuscript could realistically become suitable for publication after revision.
In some cases, if reviews are contradictory or appear flawed, the editor may:
- Seek an additional review from another expert.
- Disregard parts of a review that are clearly inappropriate or outside the reviewer’s expertise.
- Provide guidance to the authors on how to prioritise revisions when reviewer opinions clash.
3.2 Editorial Considerations Beyond Peer Review
Editors must also consider factors that reviewers do not always see, such as:
- Journal scope and readership: Does the paper align with what the journal is trying to publish this year?
- Balance of content: Does the paper duplicate topics recently covered in the journal?
- Space limitations: Can the journal accommodate the paper at its current length?
- Strategic priorities: Journals may prioritise certain methods, disciplines, or themes.
- Language quality and clarity: If poor writing obscures meaning, the editor may require significant revision or reject the paper.
Even if reviewers recommend acceptance, an editor may decide to reject a manuscript if it does not align with the journal’s current needs or if flaws remain unresolved after revision rounds. Conversely, an editor may champion a paper that reviewers view cautiously if it addresses an important question or fills a notable gap in the literature.
3.3 Possible Final Decisions
After integrating reviewer input and editorial considerations, the editor typically chooses one of the following options:
- Reject – Often accompanied by reviewer comments that can help authors improve the paper for submission elsewhere.
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions) – The paper has potential, but substantial changes are required. The manuscript may undergo another round of review.
- Accept with minor revisions – The paper is essentially sound, but some polishing is needed.
- Accept – Rarely without any revisions, but the paper is now ready to move into production.
Authors should remember that a request for revision is a positive outcome: it means the journal is seriously considering the paper. However, it also requires careful work. A detailed, point-by-point response to reviewers, together with a clearly revised manuscript, is essential to move from “revise” to “accept.”
What Authors Can Do to Improve Their Chances
Although authors cannot control the decisions of editors and reviewers, they can influence how their manuscript is perceived at every stage of the process.
- Before submission: Choose a journal that clearly matches your paper’s topic and methods. Read several recent articles to understand style, scope, and expectations.
- Follow guidelines: Adhere strictly to the journal’s instructions for authors regarding format, length, references, and ethical statements.
- Write clearly: Ensure that your language is precise, your argument coherent, and your structure logical. Consider professional editing, especially if English is not your first language.
- Prepare a strong cover letter: Briefly explain why your manuscript is original, important, and well-suited to the journal.
- Respond professionally: When you receive reviewer feedback, address every comment respectfully and thoroughly, explaining your changes or your reasons for not making a suggested change.
Conclusion
The journey from submission to publication involves far more than a single “yes” or “no” from an anonymous editor. It is a multi-layered process that combines technical checks, editorial judgement, and expert peer review. Understanding how journal editors and peer reviewers make decisions helps demystify this process and empowers authors to participate more effectively in scholarly communication.
By preparing manuscripts that are clearly written, meticulously formatted, ethically transparent, and closely aligned with a journal’s scope, authors can significantly improve their chances of progressing through each stage—from initial screening to external review and final acceptance. Investing in careful revision and, where appropriate, professional academic proofreading is not just about avoiding rejection; it is about presenting your research with the clarity and professionalism it deserves, giving it the best possible opportunity to inform, influence, and advance your field.
