Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Scholarly Communication: Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process for Scholarly Articles

While the peer review process for journals can vary, it typically follows the pattern described below.

Diagram of the Peer Review Workflow

  1. Author submits article to a journal.
  2. Managing editor determines if it is suitable for review.
    • If it is suitable for review, managing editor sends the submission to reviewers.
    • If not, the submission is immediately rejected without being sent out to peer reviewers.
  3. Peer reviewers recommend one of the following:
    1. Accept without revisions
    2. Accept pending revisions
    3. Reject
  4. If revisions are required, the author submits the revised article to the managing editor.
  5. Managing editor and/or peer reviewers determine if revisions are sufficient.

Very few articles are accepted without revisions. Being asked to revise your work is a foundational practice in scholarly publishing, and often results in the work being stronger after it has undergone review.

Is a Journal Peer Reviewed?

Peer Review in 3 Minutes Tutorial

Responding to Reviewers' Feedback