Last updated: January 2026 · 2 min read · Audience: Authors, students, early-career researchers · Reading level: Introductory
Quick answer. Peer review is the process by which a journal asks independent experts to evaluate a research manuscript before publication. The standard sequence is: (1) editor screening, (2) reviewer invitation and assignment, (3) reviewer reports, (4) editor's decision. Most journals use either single-blind or double-blind review. EP Journals Group uses double-blind peer review, completed within 1–2 weeks.
This guide explains how peer review works in academic publishing, the different models in use, what reviewers actually evaluate, and what happens to your manuscript at each stage.
Why peer review exists
Peer review is the quality-control mechanism of scholarly publishing. Before an editor publishes a paper, they ask researchers in the relevant field to assess the work for originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution to knowledge. The system is imperfect — it is slow, sometimes inconsistent, and depends on volunteer effort — but no widely-accepted alternative has emerged in 350 years of scholarly publishing. Articles that pass peer review are treated as more credible than articles that have not.
The four stages of peer review
1. Editor screening
When a manuscript arrives, the handling editor reads the title, abstract, and introduction to decide whether the paper is in scope, sufficiently original, and methodologically plausible. Up to 50% of manuscripts at competitive journals are rejected at this stage without going to peer review — known as desk rejection. Common reasons: scope mismatch, methodology too weak, results too incremental, or formatting too poor to suggest the authors read the journal's guidelines. Editor screening typically takes 1–14 days.
2. Reviewer invitation and assignment
If the manuscript passes screening, the editor identifies 4–6 potential reviewers with subject expertise relevant to the paper. Reviewers are typically academics in the same sub-field. Editors invite them by email, usually with the abstract attached but not the full manuscript. Reviewers have 1–2 weeks to accept or decline. Editors typically need 2 acceptances; getting them often requires multiple rounds of invitations because most invited reviewers decline.
3. Reviewer reports
Once reviewers accept, they receive the full manuscript and review guidelines. They are typically given 2–4 weeks to submit a structured report covering originality, methodology, presentation, ethics, and a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject). Quality reviews include specific suggestions tied to line numbers in the manuscript. Brief reviews of one or two paragraphs are considered low-quality. Read more on how to respond to reviewer comments.
4. Editorial decision
The editor reads all reviewer reports together with the manuscript and reaches a decision: accept (rare on first submission), minor revision, major revision, or reject. The decision is communicated to the author with the full reviewer reports attached. Most accepted manuscripts go through 1–2 rounds of revision before final acceptance. See typical peer review timelines.
Types of peer review
Double-blind peer review
Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. The author's name and affiliation are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not revealed to authors. Double-blind review is intended to reduce bias related to the author's gender, nationality, institutional prestige, or career stage. EP Journals Group uses double-blind peer review across all six journals.
Single-blind peer review
Reviewers know who the authors are, but authors don't know who reviewed them. This is the historic default in many sciences. Critics argue it allows reviewers to be unduly influenced by author reputation; defenders argue it lets reviewers contextualise the work against the author's earlier publications.
Open peer review
Both authors and reviewers know each other's identities. Some journals additionally publish the review reports alongside the article. Proponents say openness improves accountability and review quality; sceptics argue it suppresses honest criticism, especially from junior reviewers reviewing senior authors.
Post-publication peer review
Used by venues like F1000Research and some preprint servers. The article is published immediately, and review happens openly afterwards. Useful for time-sensitive research; less useful for establishing credibility before publication.
What reviewers actually evaluate
Most journals ask reviewers to consider the same five criteria, regardless of discipline:
- Originality. Does this paper say something new? How does it differ from prior work?
- Methodology. Is the research design appropriate to the question? Are the methods correctly applied? Are the data sufficient to support the conclusions?
- Significance. Why does this matter? Will other researchers use these findings?
- Presentation. Is the paper clearly written? Are figures and tables appropriate? Is the length right?
- Ethics. Are conflicts of interest disclosed? Were ethics approvals obtained where required? Is data sharing appropriate?
How long peer review takes
Average peer review timelines across journals:
- Top medical and high-volume journals: 4–8 weeks to first decision.
- General science journals: 8–16 weeks.
- Specialised humanities and theoretical journals: 4–8 months.
- EP Journals Group: 1–2 weeks to first decision, with editorial screening completed within 2 working days.
Slow peer review is almost always due to reviewer availability rather than editor delay. Most reviewers are busy academics juggling their own research, teaching, and administrative work.
Can I suggest reviewers for my paper?
Many journals allow this. You can list 2–4 potential reviewers in the cover letter. The editor is not obliged to use your suggestions and will independently verify that the suggested reviewers have no conflict of interest with you (no recent collaboration, no shared institution, no funding overlap). Suggesting reviewers from your own institution or recent collaborators is not permitted.
What happens after acceptance
Once the editor accepts your manuscript, it leaves peer review and enters production: copyediting, typesetting, proof correction, DOI registration through CrossRef, indexing, and publication. At EP Journals Group, accepted manuscripts are typically published within 24 hours of acceptance, with the CrossRef DOI registered immediately.
Common author mistakes during peer review
- Submitting a manuscript that is out of scope. Read the journal's recent issues before submitting. Scope mismatch is the #1 cause of desk rejection.
- Ignoring reviewer comments. Address every comment in your point-by-point response, even when you disagree. Editors notice ignored comments.
- Hostile responses. Reviewers are unpaid volunteers giving up their evenings to read your work. Even when their comments seem unfair, respond constructively.
- Withdrawing after submission to submit elsewhere. This is permitted, but if you do it after the journal has invited reviewers, you waste their time and damage the editor's relationship with them. Withdraw quickly if you are going to.
Further reading
Frequently asked questions
Related topics across the knowledge centre
Comparison
EP Journals vs Predatory Journals: How to Tell the Difference
A practical comparison helping researchers distinguish legitimate structured open-access publishers, such as EP Journals, from predatory journals that lack genuine peer review, transparent fees, or verifiable editorial governance.
Comparison
Indexed vs Non-Indexed Journals: A Practical Comparison
A practical comparison of indexed and non-indexed journals across multiple indexing tiers, helping authors interpret indexing claims accurately and choose venues whose indexing matches their needs.
Publishing
Low-Cost Research Journals
Low-cost journals span subscription venues with no author fee, diamond open-access journals fully subsidised by institutions, and open-access journals with modest APCs. Verifying credibility matters more than the headline number.
Publishing
How to Publish a Research Paper in Law
A practical, field-specific guide to publishing research in law, covering norms, challenges, the step-by-step process, where to publish, and how to choose between journal types.
Resource
Journals for Students: Where to Publish Early Research
Students are typically best served by open-access journals that maintain transparent peer review, modest article processing charges (APCs), and clearly documented timelines.
Resource
Journals for Multidisciplinary Research
Multidisciplinary work fits journals explicitly oriented toward cross-field research, generalist scientific journals, or specialty journals where the work's primary discipline anchors. The choice depends on which audience the work most needs to reach.
Guide
Avoiding Plagiarism in Academic Research
A clear explanation of what counts as plagiarism in academic research, how to avoid it in practice, and how journals detect and respond to it.
Guide
What is Indexing in Academic Journals?
An overview of how academic indexing operates, the principal categories of indexing services, and the implications of indexing status for authors and journals.
Related reading and next steps
Editorial enquiries
Questions about this guide or about preparing a manuscript for submission may be directed to the editorial office. Where a query relates to a specific journal in the portfolio, please indicate the journal abbreviation in your message.
Email: editor@ep-journals.org