Peer review of scientific articles

Rules for reviewing scientific articles, the process of reviewing an article for a scientific journal, results
Alex Malov 12-05-2021

Peer review of a scientific article allows you to improve the quality of published paper and contribute to knowledge of modern science as well as evaluate the work with the help of experts in this field. The presence of a peer review process is the most important criterion for assessing the quality of a scientific journal. Since journals that publish articles, bypassing the peer review process, cannot be included in variety of scientific indexes, for example, the list of recommended journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. High ranking journals always have peer review procedure. How exactly the review process takes place - we will tell you in our article.

Rules for reviewing scientific articles

The first step is to make sure that the article you have written complies with general rules of publishing papers. Each journal and country may have some difference, but typically it’s about the following: the content, structure and design must comply with internal requirements. Only after that you will receive a notification about the acceptance of the article for review. Your manuscript must certainly include the following information, presented and formatted according to the recommendations of the selected journal:

  • topic and title of the work in English or two languages (for example, Russian and English if you publish your work in Russian academic journal);
  • information about the author and co-authors: name, position, place of work, academic degree, academic title in English (or both languages – English and a language of the journal), e-mail address;
  • a short summary in English (or both languages – English and a language of the journal);
  • keywords in English (or both languages – English and a language of the journal).

Also keep in mind the following requirements when you submit an article for publication:

  1. Manuscripts and articles that have never been published before are considered.
  2. The originality of the peer-reviewed articles must be at least 80%.
  3. In a case that the reviewer did not accept the article, the editor sends a reply to the author of the manuscript with arguments why the work is not suitable for publication.
  4. The terms of peer review, expert evaluation and commenting are determined by the editor individually, depending on the specific case. The maximum term is typically 2 months, but it takes longer for high impact journals.
  5. The originals of the reviews are kept by the publishing house for 5 years.
  6. Interviews and reports, conference recordings, advertising texts, messages or announcements are not subject to peer review.
  7. Since your work is intellectual property and belongs to information that is not subject to disclosure, the editor is prohibited from some actions. To illustrate: use the article for own or someone else's needs, distribute the information from the article before its publication, transfer the article or parts of the article for evaluation to persons who have not been approved by the board and use the work in their own interests (for example, sell, quote, pass off the work as their own).

Reviewing an article for a scientific journal

  1. Editor's evaluation

    After submitting an application for consideration of the article, the editor of the journal will begin to study the material according to several criteria: compliance with internal rules and design standards, whether the topic of your work is suitable for this journal, whether the article will be of interest to readers. It should be said that the rules for reviewing articles in scientific journals for each publisher are individual, so before submitting your work, carefully read the requirements on the official sites.

  2. Preliminary review

    If the editor has no questions or concerns about sent article, then he will contact three or more professors and scientists on the topic of the article. They will read your work and suggest either changes or feedback.

  3. Working with corrections and errors

    You will be offered to edit the paper based on comments of experts with whom the editor collaborated. If you do not agree with the corrections, justify your position as reasonably as possible.

  4. Final peer review

    After re-submitting the article to the publisher, the editor will decide whether to release your work for publication. Thus, the process of reviewing the article will be completed.

Results of peer review of a scientific article

After all the stages, you will receive a ready-made review from the editor, which will indicate:

  • the level of correspondence of the content of the article to its topic and the title as a whole.
  • assessment of the relevance of research in the modern scientific field.
  • an assessment of your presentation of the information, how easily to understand the content of the article.
  • the feasibility of publishing your work.
  • a detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages of a verified scientific article.