What Happens After Peer Review? A Guide for Academic Authors

Introduction

The peer review process is a critical step in academic publishing, ensuring that research is rigorously evaluated before publication. However, for many authors, what happens after peer review can be unclear. Whether a manuscript is accepted, requires revisions, or is rejected, understanding the next steps can help authors navigate the process more effectively. This article explores what happens after peer review and how authors can respond to different editorial decisions.

Understanding Peer Review Outcomes

Once peer reviewers have evaluated a manuscript, the journal editor makes a decision based on their feedback. The possible outcomes include:

1. Acceptance with Minor or No Revisions – The manuscript is accepted with little or no changes required.
2. Major or Minor Revisions Required – The paper is not yet accepted but can be reconsidered after revisions.
3. Rejection with Invitation to Resubmit – The journal declines the paper but allows resubmission after substantial improvements.
4. Rejection with No Resubmission Option – The manuscript is rejected outright, often due to a mismatch with the journal’s scope or major methodological flaws.

Each of these outcomes requires different responses from the author. Understanding what to do in each case is essential for successfully navigating the publication process.

Scenario 1: Acceptance with Minor or No Revisions

If a manuscript is accepted with minor or no revisions, authors should:

• Carefully review the editor’s final comments. Even minor revisions must be addressed to ensure the manuscript is error-free.
• Make necessary formatting changes. Journals may have specific requirements for final submission, such as reference style or figure formatting.
• Submit the final version promptly. Delays in submitting the final version could affect the publication timeline and push the paper to a later issue.
• Review proofs before publication. Authors may receive galley proofs for final corrections. This is the last opportunity to catch any typos, errors, or formatting issues.

Scenario 2: Revising and Resubmitting a Manuscript

When an editor requests revisions, the next steps include:

1. Carefully Reading Reviewer Feedback

• Identify key concerns raised by reviewers.
• Distinguish between essential changes (which must be addressed) and optional suggestions (which can improve the paper but may not be required).

2. Creating a Response Letter

• A structured response letter should address each reviewer’s comments in detail.
• Responses should be professional, acknowledging feedback and explaining how the changes were implemented.
• If a suggestion is not followed, a well-reasoned justification should be provided.

3. Revising the Manuscript

• Incorporate necessary changes while maintaining the integrity of the research.
• Ensure clarity in writing and organization.
• If additional experiments or data analysis are required, complete them before resubmission.

4. Submitting the Revised Paper

• Ensure all requested changes are clearly highlighted in the manuscript.
• Attach the response letter detailing how each issue was addressed.

5. Awaiting Further Review

• Some revisions may be re-evaluated by reviewers, leading to additional feedback.
• If accepted, the paper proceeds to publication; if further revisions are required, repeat the process.

Revisions are a normal part of the publication process. A well-structured response increases the likelihood of acceptance.

Scenario 3: Rejection with Invitation to Resubmit

A rejection with an invitation to resubmit is different from a direct rejection. It means the paper has potential but requires significant improvements. Steps to take:

• Understand the Major Concerns – Reviewers typically outline key areas that need substantial revision.
• Decide Whether to Resubmit – If the changes are manageable, authors can work on improving the paper.
• Follow the Journal’s Instructions – Some journals allow a resubmission as a new submission, while others treat it as a revised manuscript.
• Improve the Paper Before Resubmitting – Strengthen the methodology, address feedback, and refine writing quality.
• Consider Alternative Journals – If the revisions required are extensive, submitting to a different journal may be a better option.

If choosing to resubmit to the same journal, authors should indicate in their cover letter how the manuscript has been improved based on previous feedback.

Scenario 4: Rejection Without Resubmission Option

If a manuscript is rejected without the option to resubmit, authors should:

1. Analyze the Feedback

• Determine whether the rejection was due to scope mismatch, fundamental flaws, or other concerns.
• Use the feedback to improve the manuscript for submission elsewhere.

2. Consider Other Journals

• Identify alternative journals that may be a better fit for the research.
• Adjust the manuscript based on the previous feedback before submitting.

3. Seek Advice from Colleagues

• Discuss the rejection with co-authors or mentors for insights.
• Consider revising and improving the paper before submitting to a new journal.

Rejection is a common part of the academic publishing process. Many well-known studies were initially rejected before being published in reputable journals.

Final Steps Before Publication

Once a manuscript is accepted, there are final steps before it appears in the journal:

1. Proofreading and Final Edits

• Authors will receive page proofs to check for errors before the final publication.
• This is the last opportunity to correct minor typos, formatting errors, or inconsistencies.

2. Copyright Agreements

• Authors may need to sign copyright transfer or open-access agreements, depending on the journal’s policies.
• Open-access journals may require payment of an article processing charge (APC).

3. DOI and Online Publication

• Accepted papers are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), which provides a permanent link to the research.
• Many journals publish accepted papers online before the print edition.

Tips for Navigating the Peer Review Process Efficiently

• Be Patient: The peer review process can take weeks or months. Plan accordingly.
• Be Professional in Responses: Even if reviewer comments seem harsh, respond politely and professionally.
• Be Thorough in Revisions: Address all concerns raised by reviewers to avoid unnecessary delays.
• Consider Preprint Servers: Some authors share their work on platforms like arXiv or bioRxiv before publication to get early feedback.

Conclusion

Understanding what happens after peer review helps authors manage expectations and respond effectively to editorial decisions. Whether a manuscript is accepted, requires revisions, or is rejected, knowing the next steps ensures a smoother publishing experience. By engaging professionally with reviewers and making necessary improvements, authors can enhance their research and increase their chances of successful publication. Navigating peer review requires patience, but with careful attention to feedback and revisions, authors can achieve publication success.