In short: Peer review is the independent evaluation of a research manuscript by experts in the same field. It helps editors decide what to publish, improves the work through constructive feedback, and is a cornerstone of a trustworthy scholarly record.
What is peer review?
Peer review is the process by which a submitted manuscript is assessed by independent experts — the authors' "peers" — before it can be accepted for publication. Reviewers judge the work on its scholarly merits and advise the handling editor, who makes the final decision. It is one of the defining features that separates a legitimate journal from a predatory one.
Why peer review matters
- Quality control — it filters out flawed methods, unsupported conclusions and errors before publication.
- Improvement — constructive feedback strengthens the work, often substantially.
- Trust — readers, funders and the public can have more confidence in peer-reviewed findings.
- Integrity — reviewers can flag ethical concerns such as plagiarism or data problems.
The main types of peer review
Single-blind
Reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors do not know who reviewed their work. It is common but can allow bias based on an author's name, seniority or institution.
Double-blind
Both authors' and reviewers' identities are hidden from each other. This helps reviewers focus on the science itself and reduces conscious and unconscious bias — which is why our journals use double-blind review.
Open peer review
Reviewer identities, reports, or both are disclosed, sometimes published alongside the article. It increases transparency and accountability.
Post-publication review
Commentary and evaluation continue after publication, through formal comments or community discussion.
How peer review works, step by step
- Submission — the author submits the manuscript (see our author guidelines).
- Editorial checks — the editorial office checks scope, completeness and formatting, and screens for similarity.
- Editor assessment — a handling editor decides whether the manuscript is suitable to send for review; unsuitable work may be declined without external review.
- Reviewer invitation — the editor invites independent experts without disqualifying conflicts of interest.
- Review — reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit confidential, structured reports.
- Decision — the editor weighs the reports and decides: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
- Revision and re-review — authors revise; substantial changes usually go back to reviewers.
- Publication — accepted articles are produced, assigned a DOI and published.
What reviewers assess
- Originality and significance of the contribution;
- Validity of the study design and methods;
- Whether the analysis supports the conclusions;
- Clarity and completeness of the reporting;
- Ethics, consent and data availability;
- Relevance to the journal's scope and readership.
If you would like to review for us, see our reviewer guidelines and how to become a reviewer. Reviewers act in line with the COPE Core Practices.
Key takeaways
- Peer review is independent expert evaluation before publication.
- Common models are single-blind, double-blind and open review.
- The editor makes the final decision, informed by reviewer reports.
- Rejection and requests for revision are normal parts of a working process.