What Happens After Peer Review? A Guide for Academic Authors

What Happens After Peer Review? Editorial Decisions, Next Steps, and How to Respond

Introduction

The peer review process is at the heart of academic publishing. It provides independent, expert evaluation of a manuscript’s methods, findings, and significance before the work becomes part of the scholarly record. Yet for many authors—especially those early in their careers—the period after the peer review reports have been submitted can feel mysterious. What exactly happens behind the scenes? How are decisions made? And once you receive a decision, what should you do next?

Understanding the post–peer review stage is crucial for navigating the publication process calmly and strategically. Whether your manuscript is accepted, invited for revision, or rejected, there are clear, constructive steps you can take to strengthen your work and maintain a professional relationship with editors and reviewers.

This article explains the main editorial outcomes that follow peer review, what each one really means, and how to respond effectively. It also covers the final stages of the process—from proofs and copyright forms to DOIs and online publication—so that you know what to expect all the way from the first decision email to seeing your article live on the journal’s website.

From Reviews to Decision: How Editors Use Reviewer Reports

After sending your manuscript out for review, the editor receives one or more reports from invited reviewers. The editor then:

• reads each review carefully,
• assesses the quality and tone of the comments,
• considers how well the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and standards, and
• decides on an overall recommendation.

Reviewers advise; editors decide. That is why two reviewers can disagree and the editor can still reach a clear decision. The decision is typically conveyed to the authors in one of four forms:

1. Acceptance (with minor or no revisions),
2. Invitation to revise and resubmit (minor or major revisions),
3. Rejection with invitation to resubmit as a substantially revised paper, or
4. Rejection with no resubmission option.

Each outcome calls for a different strategy. The sections below walk through each scenario in detail.

Scenario 1: Acceptance with Minor or No Revisions

“We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted…” – this is the message every author hopes to see. In practice, immediate acceptance with no changes at all is rare. More often, the editor will accept the manuscript subject to minor revisions.

What “Minor Revisions” Usually Means

Minor revisions typically involve:

• correcting small errors in spelling, grammar, or formatting;
• clarifying a few sentences or adding brief explanatory notes;
• adjusting references to match journal style; or
• making minor changes to figures, tables, or captions.

The key point is that the editor is satisfied with the study’s design and conclusions; no additional experiments or major reanalyses are required.

How to Proceed After Acceptance with Minor Revisions

• Read the decision letter carefully. Even small requests must be addressed accurately. The editor may also provide instructions for formatting the final version.
• Implement all minor changes promptly. Fix language issues, adjust formatting, and respond to any remaining clarifications. This is an excellent moment to use a human proofreading service to ensure that no errors remain before the paper enters production.
• Return the revised files on time. Journals may set a short deadline for minor revisions. Late submissions can delay publication or push your article into a later issue.
• Check and return proofs carefully. After acceptance, you will receive page proofs or a typeset PDF. This is your final chance to catch typographical errors or small formatting problems before publication.

Once you have approved the proofs, your article moves into the final production stage and will be assigned a DOI and publication date.

Scenario 2: Major or Minor Revisions Required (Revise and Resubmit)

The most common outcome after peer review is “revise and resubmit.” This is generally a positive sign: the journal sees potential in your work but needs changes before it can be accepted.

Step 1: Read All Feedback Thoroughly

Do not rush to respond. Take time to:

• read the editor’s summary and each reviewer’s report in full,
• highlight major issues (e.g., additional analysis, restructuring, methodological clarifications), and
• note minor issues (typos, formatting, minor clarifications).

Try to see the feedback as a tool to improve your manuscript, not as a personal attack. Many highly cited papers went through several rounds of revision before acceptance.

Step 2: Develop a Revision Plan

Next, create a structured plan for addressing the comments:

• group comments by theme (methods, results, discussion, language, figures, etc.);
• identify which changes are essential for scientific validity and which are optional;
• estimate how much time will be needed for each task (e.g., additional analysis, rewriting sections, checking references);
• agree on responsibilities with co-authors.

If the required changes are extensive, you may need to negotiate the revision deadline with the editor. Journals are often willing to grant extensions if you ask early and explain why more time is needed.

Step 3: Revise the Manuscript Carefully

During revision:

• Address all core scientific points. Strengthen your methods description, clarify your analysis, and correct any errors identified by reviewers.
• Improve structure and clarity. Use the opportunity to streamline the introduction, tighten the discussion, and make your argument easier to follow.
• Update references where needed. If reviewers suggest key sources, consider including them—if they are relevant and of high quality.
• Enhance language quality. Clear, precise writing reduces the chance of further misunderstandings. Professional human proofreading can be very helpful at this stage.

Step 4: Write a Detailed Response Letter

Your response to reviewers is as important as the revised manuscript itself. A well-organised response letter should:

• quote or summarise each reviewer comment (usually in bold or italics);
• explain exactly how you have addressed the point in the manuscript, including page and line numbers; and
• where you do not follow a suggestion, provide a calm, evidence-based explanation.

Example of a constructive response:

“We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for clearer justification of our sampling strategy. We have now expanded Section 2.3 to explain the rationale in more detail and added two references that support this approach (Page 7, Lines 8–21).”

Once submitted, the revised manuscript may be evaluated by the original reviewers, by new reviewers, or by the editor alone, depending on the extent of the changes and the journal’s policy.

Scenario 3: Rejection with Invitation to Resubmit

Sometimes editors reject a manuscript but explicitly encourage the authors to submit a heavily revised version in the future. This is different from a standard rejection: it signals that the topic is of interest but that the current version is too far from publishable for a straightforward “revise and resubmit.”

What This Outcome Means

Typical reasons for “reject and invite resubmission” include:

• the need for substantial restructuring of the manuscript,
• major methodological improvements or additional data collection,
• serious but fixable problems in analysis or interpretation, or
• a mismatch with the journal’s format (e.g., turning a long article into a shorter report or vice versa).

Deciding Whether to Resubmit

Ask yourself:

• Are the required changes realistically achievable with your current resources?
• Would it be more efficient to submit a revised version to a different journal instead?
• Does the journal’s audience and reputation justify the extra work?

If you decide to resubmit, treat the new manuscript as a significantly improved version, not a slightly edited one. In your cover letter, explain clearly that this is a revised resubmission and summarise the major improvements you have made based on the previous reviews.

Scenario 4: Rejection with No Resubmission Option

Full rejection, especially without an invitation to resubmit, can feel like a dead end. In reality, it is often just a sign that this particular journal was not the right home for your manuscript at this time.

Step 1: Analyse the Reasons for Rejection

Carefully review any feedback provided:

• If the main issue is scope mismatch, you may need to target a more specialised or differently focused journal.
• If reviewers have identified fundamental methodological flaws, you may need to rethink your study design or run new analyses.
• If feedback focuses on writing quality and structure, a major rewrite and professional editing could substantially improve your chances elsewhere.

Step 2: Improve the Manuscript Before Submitting Elsewhere

Even if the journal says “no resubmission,” the reviewer comments are still valuable. Use them to:

• clarify your arguments,
• strengthen methods and analysis,
• restructure the paper where necessary, and
• correct language and formatting problems.

Experienced authors often treat a rejection as a forced revision opportunity. Many successful, widely cited papers were rejected at least once before finding the right journal.

Step 3: Choose a New Journal Strategically

When selecting a new target journal:

• reassess the scope and readership you are aiming for,
• check whether the journal publishes papers with similar methods and topics, and
• ensure your manuscript now meets the formatting and language expectations of that outlet.

Never submit to another journal without first making serious improvements based on the previous feedback; otherwise, you risk encountering the same problems again.

Final Stages After Acceptance: From Proofs to Publication

Once your manuscript is officially accepted, it enters the production pipeline. Several important steps remain before the paper is fully published.

1. Copyediting and Proofs

The journal’s production team will typeset your article and apply house style to headings, references, tables, and figures. You will then receive proofs, usually as a PDF. At this stage you should:

• check for typographical errors, incorrect symbols, or formatting issues;
• ensure that all figures and tables are correctly labelled and legible;
• verify author names, affiliations, and acknowledgements.

This is not the time for major rewrites or new data; only small corrections are typically allowed. Many authors choose to ask a colleague or professional proofreader to review the proofs, as this is the final chance to catch errors.

2. Copyright and Licensing

Most journals require authors to sign a copyright transfer or licence agreement. In open access journals, you may instead sign a licence specifying the terms under which others can reuse your work (for example, a Creative Commons licence). At this point:

• ensure that all co-authors understand and agree with the terms;
• check whether an article processing charge (APC) applies in the case of open access; and
• confirm how your institution or funder expects you to handle open access and copyright.

3. DOI Assignment and Online Publication

Once proofs are approved and legal formalities are complete, the article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), creating a permanent, citable link. Many journals publish articles online as “early view” or “online first” before they appear in a specific issue.

At this point, you can begin sharing the DOI with colleagues, on professional platforms such as ORCID, ResearchGate, or institutional repositories, and via social media or personal webpages—always following the journal’s sharing policies.

Tips for Navigating the Post–Peer Review Process

• Be patient. Peer review and editorial decisions can take weeks or months. Plan your writing and submission timeline with this in mind.
• Be professional. Respond to editors and reviewers respectfully, even when you disagree or feel disappointed.
• Be systematic. Treat each decision as a step in a longer process. Track changes carefully and document how you address every comment.
• Seek support. Co-authors, mentors, and professional human proofreaders and editors can help you interpret feedback, plan revisions, and polish your responses and manuscript.
• Consider preprints thoughtfully. In some fields, sharing preprints on platforms such as arXiv or bioRxiv can provide early visibility and additional informal feedback while formal peer review is underway.

Conclusion

What happens after peer review is not a black box. Editors convert reviewer reports into decisions, and each decision—acceptance, revision, resubmission, or rejection—comes with clear next steps. By understanding these outcomes and responding thoughtfully, you can reduce uncertainty, make better strategic choices, and use reviewer feedback to strengthen not only your current manuscript but also your future work.

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals requires patience, resilience, and attention to detail. However, with a clear grasp of the post–peer review process, a constructive attitude toward revisions and rejections, and the support of experienced human proofreaders and editors where needed, you can navigate the journey from submission to publication with greater confidence and a higher chance of success.