Publishing in a scholarly journal:
Part three, peer review

In this part of the series, we examine the role of peer reviewers. Learn about the different types of peer review, the contributions of reviewers, how to become a reviewer, and more.

To read the other parts of this series, check out:

• Part one, the publication process
• Part three, peer review

Does an associate editor serve as basically another reviewer?

Response: This will vary by journal. At Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology (ECP), our associate editor operates in a relatively autonomous fashion similar to the editor-in-chief: managing review of papers, making decisions based on those reviews, providing some form of input on each paper she is handling, etc. At other journals, associate editors will provide an additional review, likely having agreed to handle/review a certain number of papers each year, with the paper decision process managed by the editor-in-chief.

How common is blind review (i.e. reviewers do not know who the authors are)?

Response: At ECP, like many other psychology journals, double blind review (i.e. authors are blinded to reviewer identity and reviewers are blinded to author identity) is not particularly common, perhaps 10–20% of our annual submissions, but single blind review (i.e., authors are blinded to reviewer identity but reviewers know author identity) is the norm.

How many reviewers are usually chosen to review a paper?

Response: At ECP, we have at least two reviewers per paper. Other journals will have three (or even four) reviewers per paper. Though uncommon, even more reviewers may be added in specific circumstances (e.g., previous reviews demonstrating the need to bring on a reviewer with very specific expertise to resolve discrepancies between reviews).

How does one become a reviewer?

There are several ways to become a reviewer. First, you can contact a journal editor, introduce yourself and your area of expertise and ask that they consider you for any papers they receive that would fit with your content area. Second, most journal sites allow you to register as a reviewer independent of contacting the editor. If you register yourself, please be sure to include key words about your expertise in your profile to help editors when they are searching for individuals based on their research focus. Finally, some editors will register you directly in their systems as a potential reviewer if you are known to have specific expertise (e.g., if you have published a paper in the relevant area). In these cases, you will likely get an email that you have been added to the editorial system, but you may not yet be asked to review a specific paper even if you are added to the system—you are simply in the system of potential reviewers. If you’d like to learn how to approach reviewing a manuscript, there are great resources online, including on the APA website.

Is it a requirement to review papers in academia?

No, this is not necessarily a requirement. However, serving as a peer reviewer is important for professional development because it can help improve writing skills and provide insight into new scientific developments. It is also a critical service to the field that all authors rely on for their papers to be published in peer review journals. Some departments expect their faculty to provide this service.

What's the difference between a minor and major revision?

Response: A minor revision often implies that there are a limited number of changes that are needed to improve the manuscript for publication. Depending on the extent of the minor revision, the editor may decide not to send it out for re-review. A major revision often requires more substantive changes prior to being appropriate for publication. Major revisions are almost always sent back to reviewers for a re-review to determine whether the comments have been addressed and no new comments are raised. If authors are unable to satisfactorily address the comments, further revisions may be required or the paper may be rejected.

What's up with a new thing I've heard about called reject and resubmit? Wherein an editor rejects an article but invites you to resubmit later, presumably with what is basically major revisions.

Response: Reject and resubmits are situations where the manuscript is rejected, but unlike ‘reject’ these manuscripts can be modified and resubmitted if appropriate. While this may appear to be similar to a major revision, there are some key differences that are important to consider. A ‘reject and resubmit’ means the manuscript is no longer under consideration by the journal and the authors may choose to submit to another journal. It is also important to note that a ‘reject with the option to resubmit’ signifies that the editor saw merit in the manuscript but was not sure if the extensive changes needed to make it publishable could be accomplished. These changes often will take a lot of time and it is possible that the changes may not be able to fully address the concerns of the reviewers. In that case, the article may still be ultimately rejected. When an author receives a ‘reject and resubmit’ they should carefully read through the comments and determine whether they believe they can address the concerns that have been raised during review. If they believe they can address the concerns and would like to make the changes, then the decision of ‘reject and resubmit’ allows the authors to resubmit the manuscript.

How many rounds of reviewing and revision does a paper typically go through, and do more rounds of revision increase changes of acceptance? Is there a maximum number of times a paper can get reviewed before it is rejected?

Response: These days, it is exceedingly rare for the initial version of an academic paper in psychology to be accepted upon first submission. While there are some exceptions for specific article types (e.g., some letters to the editor), most psychology articles that are not initially rejected are asked to be revised 1-2 times. If authors are attentive and careful in responding to reviewer and editor concerns, the chances that an article is accepted typically increases with successive revision. It is important to remember that even an invitation to submit a minor revision, however, is not a guarantee for acceptance. It is possible that authors will not be able to successfully respond to even minor concerns. All revisions (even minor ones) may be fully reviewed again, and new concerns could be identified by reviewers. At ECP, if a paper is going to be rejected, it is typically rejected after the first round of review. Sometimes, if a revision is not responsive or identified issues cannot be sufficiently addressed, a paper will be rejected after a second round of review but this is rare.

Do you need to respond to all the reviewers comments? How do you respond to a reviewers comments if you don’t agree with or it isn’t feasible to address their critique?

Response: During the revision process it is important that you provide a detailed response letter that includes every reviewer comment (yes, even those you don’t agree with) and a detailed response to the comments. It is not required that you agree with or make the exact changes of every reviewer request, but you need to carefully consider each of the points raised and provide a detailed rationale for making (or not making) requested changes. If you disagree with a reviewer’s critique, it is important that you respectfully provide a detailed counterpoint to their critique and your rationale for not making the suggested change. If appropriate, you may want to incorporate this rationale into the manuscript itself. If a reviewer has a critique that is not feasible to address, you should note why it is not feasible. If appropriate, this comment may be incorporated as a study limitation.

How do you respond to a reviewer who only wants you to cite a lot of their work?

Response: The reasons for a reviewer’s request for specific citations can vary widely. In cases where the requested citations are scientifically relevant, citing several articles from the same author(s) may be reasonable. In other cases, a reviewer’s request for specific citations may not be scientifically relevant. If you do not believe that the requested citations are relevant, you should carefully describe how the citations are inappropriate in your response letter to the reviewers and editor. If the reviewer disagrees with your assessment, the editor can help resolve this. Finally, it is worth noting that reviewers are often anonymous either by choice or requirement of the journal’s editorial process. When a reviewer is anonymous and not directly identified, authors should be careful in assuming that they know their identity.

If a second experiment is requested, can you ask an editor for input? What and when can you reach out to the editor/associate editor for?

Response: By all means. If an editor or reviewer requests an additional experiment, it is worth reaching out to the editor if you have questions about why the experiment was recommended and/or if such an experiment is feasible/necessary. You should feel free to reach out to an editor anytime you are unsure about how to respond to issues raised in the review process.