Understanding Peer Review: Models, Decisions and Author Responsibilities

Understand the purpose of review

Peer review brings relevant expertise to the assessment of a manuscript. Reviewers may examine the question, methods, evidence, interpretation and reporting, while editors decide whether the work meets the journal's criteria. The process can improve a paper, but it does not certify that every result is correct or every limitation has been discovered.

Read the journal's publication criteria before submission. Some journals emphasise methodological soundness, while others also apply particular scope or significance requirements. PLOS One, for example, describes its own review criteria and structured reviewer process publicly. ^[1] That example illustrates why authors should understand the venue rather than assume all review decisions use the same standard.

Know the review model

Journals use different approaches to anonymity and disclosure. In some models, reviewers know the authors while authors do not know reviewers. Other models conceal identities in both directions or publish review reports and responses. Terminology and implementation vary, so examine the journal's explanation.

Anonymity is not always complete, particularly when preprints or specialised topics make identities apparent. Authors should follow manuscript-anonymisation instructions without misrepresenting their work. Reviewers should disclose relevant interests and follow confidentiality requirements. The review model does not remove the need for professional conduct and independent judgement.

Prepare a complete and accurate submission

Provide the manuscript, reporting information, data statements and declarations required by the journal. Confirm authorship, funding, interests and ethics information before submission. Make figures and supplementary material understandable without requiring reviewers to reconstruct missing methods.

If asked to suggest reviewers, provide accurate information and disclose relevant relationships. Never create false identities or manipulate contact details. COPE's reviewer guidance sets out principles concerning appropriate expertise, conflicts and responsible handling of manuscripts. ^[2] Authors should support the integrity of that process rather than treat reviewer selection as an opportunity to secure favourable opinions.

Interpret editorial decisions carefully

A desk rejection usually means the editor decided not to proceed to external review. The reason may concern fit, article type, reporting or other criteria. A request for revision indicates that changes are needed; it is not equivalent to acceptance. Major and minor revision labels can mean different things across journals.

Read the editor's letter alongside the individual reports. Identify essential concerns, requests for clarification and suggestions that may be optional or beyond scope. If instructions conflict or are unclear, ask the editor for guidance. Avoid responding to one reviewer in a way that leaves the editor's central concern unanswered.

Illustrative example: conflicting reviewer advice

Suppose one reviewer asks an education paper to focus on institutional policy, while another requests a detailed theoretical expansion. The authors cannot simply add both without losing the paper's coherence. They examine the editor's priorities and explain how a revised structure will address the central contribution.

The response identifies which changes were made, where they appear and why some suggestions would require a different study. The manuscript itself is clarified so future readers benefit. A respectful, evidence-based explanation is more useful than agreeing to every request or dismissing criticism as a failure to understand the paper.

Protect confidentiality and maintain accountability

Handle review reports according to the journal's policies. Do not publicly identify anonymous reviewers based on speculation. When using external editing or AI tools, consider confidentiality and the journal's requirements; do not upload privileged material where disclosure is unauthorised or protection is uncertain.

All authors should review substantive changes and approve the revised version. If new analyses alter the interpretation, update the abstract, discussion and relevant declarations. If a serious error is discovered during review, inform the editor rather than hoping it will go unnoticed. Responsibility for the work remains with the authors throughout the process.

Use a responsible-review checklist

• The journal's review model and criteria are understood.
• Submission information is complete and accurate.
• Suggested reviewers are genuine and appropriately independent.
• Editorial priorities guide the revision plan.
• Responses address every substantive comment.
• Confidential material is handled appropriately.
• All authors approve the final revised manuscript.

A rejection can still provide useful feedback, while an acceptance does not end the responsibility to correct mistakes. Treat peer review as a structured scholarly exchange with limits, responsibilities and opportunities to improve the clarity and reliability of the research record.