Understanding Peer Review in Science

Peer Review Process
The manuscript peer review process helps ensure scientific publications are credible and minimizes errors.

Peer review is an essential element of the scientific publishing process that helps ensure that research articles are evaluated, critiqued, and improved before release into the academic community. Take a look at the significance of peer review in scientific publications, the typical steps of the process, and and how to approach peer review if you are asked to assess a manuscript.

What Is Peer Review?

Peer review is the evaluation of work by peers, who are people with comparable experience and competency. Peers assess each others’ work in educational settings, in professional settings, and in the publishing world. The goal of peer review is improving quality, defining and maintaining standards, and helping people learn from one another.

In the context of scientific publication, peer review helps editors determine which submissions merit publication and improves the quality of manuscripts prior to their final release.

Types of Peer Review for Manuscripts

There are three main types of peer review:

  1. Single-blind review: The reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
  2. Double-blind review: Both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
  3. Open peer review: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are disclosed, promoting transparency and collaboration.

There are advantages and disadvantages of each method. Anonymous reviews reduce bias but reduce collaboration, while open reviews are more transparent, but increase bias.

Key Elements of Peer Review

Proper selection of a peer group improves the outcome of the process:

  1. Expertise: Reviewers should possess adequate knowledge and experience in the relevant field to provide constructive feedback.
  2. Objectivity: Reviewers assess the manuscript impartially and without personal bias.
  3. Confidentiality: The peer review process maintains confidentiality to protect intellectual property and encourage honest feedback.
  4. Timeliness: Reviewers provide feedback within a reasonable timeframe to ensure timely publication.

Steps of the Peer Review Process

The typical peer review process for scientific publications involves the following steps:

  1. Submission: Authors submit their manuscript to a journal that aligns with their research topic.
  2. Editorial assessment: The journal editor examines the manuscript and determines whether or not it is suitable for publication. If it is not, the manuscript is rejected.
  3. Peer review: If it is suitable, the editor sends the article to peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
  4. Reviewer feedback: Reviewers provide feedback, critique, and suggestions for improvement.
  5. Revision and resubmission: Authors address the feedback and make necessary revisions before resubmitting the manuscript.
  6. Final decision: The editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the revised version and reviewer comments.
  7. Publication: If accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting before being published in the journal.

Pros and Cons

While the goal of peer review is improving the quality of published research, the process isn’t without its drawbacks.


  • Quality assurance: Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of published research.
  • Error detection: The process identifies errors and flaws that the authors may have overlooked.
  • Credibility: The scientific community generally considers peer-reviewed articles to be more credible.
  • Professional development: Reviewers can learn from the work of others and enhance their own knowledge and understanding.


  • Time-consuming: The peer review process can be lengthy, delaying the publication of potentially valuable research.
  • Bias: Personal biases of reviews impact their evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Inconsistency: Different reviewers may provide conflicting feedback, making it challenging for authors to address all concerns.
  • Limited effectiveness: Peer review does not always detect significant errors or misconduct.
  • Poaching: Some reviewers take an idea from a submission and gain publication before the authors of the original research.

Steps for Conducting Peer Review of an Article

Generally, an editor provides guidance when you are asked to provide peer review of a manuscript. Here are typical steps of the process.

  1. Accept the right assignment: Accept invitations to review articles that align with your area of expertise to ensure you can provide well-informed feedback.
  2. Manage your time: Allocate sufficient time to thoroughly read and evaluate the manuscript, while adhering to the journal’s deadline for providing feedback.
  3. Read the manuscript multiple times: First, read the manuscript for an overall understanding of the research. Then, read it more closely to assess the details, methodology, results, and conclusions.
  4. Evaluate the structure and organization: Check if the manuscript follows the journal’s guidelines and is structured logically, with clear headings, subheadings, and a coherent flow of information.
  5. Assess the quality of the research: Evaluate the research question, study design, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Consider whether the methods are appropriate, the results are valid, and the conclusions are supported by the data.
  6. Examine the originality and relevance: Determine if the research offers new insights, builds on existing knowledge, and is relevant to the field.
  7. Check for clarity and consistency: Review the manuscript for clarity of writing, consistent terminology, and proper formatting of figures, tables, and references.
  8. Identify ethical issues: Look for potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.
  9. Provide constructive feedback: Offer specific, actionable, and objective suggestions for improvement, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Don’t be mean.
  10. Organize your review: Structure your review with an overview of your evaluation, followed by detailed comments and suggestions organized by section (e.g., introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion).
  11. Be professional and respectful: Maintain a respectful tone in your feedback, avoiding personal criticism or derogatory language.
  12. Proofread your review: Before submitting your review, proofread it for typos, grammar, and clarity.


  • Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). “Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study”. Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331
  • Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo; Cronin, Blaise (2013). “Bias in peer review”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (1): 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784
  • Slavov, Nikolai (2015). “Making the most of peer review”. eLife. 4: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708
  • Spier, Ray (2002). “The history of the peer-review process”. Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
  • Squazzoni, Flaminio; Brezis, Elise; Marušić, Ana (2017). “Scientometrics of peer review”. Scientometrics. 113 (1): 501–502. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4