In order to promote trasparency in our peer review processes we invite our readers, authors, and reviewers to ask us questions about our practices! Fire away!
#PeerReviewWeek22
#PeerReviewWeek22
How many people read your paper if you submit it to us? The editor in chief reads it before assigning it to the editor handling the submission. Then the handling editor seeks two expert reviewers to provide feedback unless the paper is deemed unsuitable for the journal. /1
Once your paper goes out to peer review, what are the possible outcomes? If both reviewers like the paper and deem it suitable for publication, then you are likely to get a verdict of "minor revisions" to enable you to make some changes following the reviewers' suggestions /2
If one or both reviewers have reservations but are hopeful that the paper can be improved and become of publishable standard, then you are likely to get a verdict of "major revisions", and expected to implement some substantial changes to your paper /3
If reviewers are concerned that changes may not be sufficient for the paper to be publishable, then the recommendation is "reject and resubmit", meaning that editors are happy to see a revised version but will ask for a new reviewer's feedback before reaching a decision /4
If one or both reviewers express serious concerns about the paper (e.g., argument not sufficiently developed or not adding much to current debates), then the paper is likely to be rejected. Although this is a disappointing outcome, hopefully the reviewers' feedback is helpful /5
Not all cases are clear-cut and often reviewers disagree about the merits of the paper or the potential for reaching the expected standard for publication. The handling editor makes a decision based on the evidence at their disposal and can ask other editors for advice /6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
