Submitting a manuscript for the first time is a big step, and it is often followed by a long stretch of not knowing what comes next. Who reads your paper after you submit it? Why does it take so long to hear back? And what does it mean if the first response is not a simple yes?
For first-time authors, peer review can feel like a closed room. It is not. It follows a defined sequence, and each stage exists for a reason. This guide walks through the peer review process step by step, so you know what to expect and can approach it with confidence.
What is peer review, and why does it matter?
Peer review is the process journals use to assess research before publication. Independent experts in your field read your manuscript and advise on whether the methods are sound, the conclusions match the data, and the work adds something meaningful to the field.
It is tempting to see peer review as a hurdle between you and publication. It is more useful to see it as a second and third set of expert eyes: catching gaps, testing weak points, and confirming the work holds up before the wider world reads it. Editors, reviewers, and authors each play a role in helping ensure that published research is rigorous, clear, and well supported.
How does the peer review process work, stage by stage?
Stage 1: The journal checks the basics
Before your manuscript reaches any reviewer, the editorial team screens it. They check whether the paper fits the journal's scope, follows the required format, and includes everything needed, such as ethics approvals and data availability statements.
This is why reading the author guidelines closely, before you submit, matters so much. A paper returned at this stage is rarely being judged on the quality of the research. It is usually a scope or formatting issue you could have avoided. If you have not yet settled on a target journal, start with how to choose the right open access journal for your research.
Stage 2: An editor takes the lead
Once your manuscript clears that check, the journal assigns it to an editor with expertise in your subject area. The editor oversees the peer review process and selects suitable reviewers: researchers with the right expertise and no conflicts of interest with you or your work.
This stage often takes longer than authors expect. Reviewers are volunteers with their own research and clinical commitments and finding two or three who are both qualified and available can take weeks, particularly in specialized fields. A quiet inbox at this point does not mean something has gone wrong. There is no standard timeline for peer review: the process can take several weeks or longer depending on the journal, subject area, reviewer availability, and the complexity of the manuscript.
Stage 3: Reviewers read and respond
Depending on the journal and manuscript, the editor may invite two or more reviewers to assess your manuscript in detail. They assess whether the research question is clear, the methods are appropriate and fully described, the results support the conclusions, and nothing is missing that a reader would need in order to trust the findings.
Reviewers then return their comments to the editor with a recommendation. Reviewers are not expecting a perfect paper. They are looking for an honest one, where the methods are transparent and the claims match the evidence.
Stage 4: The editorial decision
With reviewer feedback in hand, the editor decides what happens next. This is where first-time authors feel the most uncertainty, so it helps to know what each outcome means:
- Accepted: Uncommon on a first submission, but it happens.
- Minor revision: The core research is sound and the editor wants small clarifications or additions. This is a strong outcome and usually a quick turnaround.
- Major revision: More substantial work is needed, such as further analysis or a deeper discussion of the results. This is not a rejection. It signals that the editor and reviewers see real value in the work.
- Rejected: The paper is not the right fit for that journal, or the issues raised go beyond what revision can resolve.
One point is worth stating plainly, because it trips up so many first-time authors: being asked to revise is not the same as being rejected. Revision is a common part of scholarly publishing. It means the editor sees potential in the manuscript but believes changes are needed before a final decision can be made.
Stage 5: How should you respond to reviewer comments?
How you respond to feedback matters almost as much as the feedback itself. A few habits consistently help:
- Address every comment, including the small ones, in a clear point-by-point response letter.
- Be specific about what you changed and where, so the editor and reviewers can find it quickly.
- If you disagree, say so respectfully and explain your reasoning with evidence. You do not have to accept every suggestion, but you do have to address it.
- Keep a collaborative tone. Reviewers are trying to help your paper succeed.
One or more rounds of revision may be part of the publication process. Papers that go through the process tend to come out clearer and better argued than they went in.
Stage 6: Final decision and publication
Once you resubmit, the editor may send the revised manuscript back to reviewers for a final look or decide directly. If it is accepted, your paper moves into production, where it is copyedited and formatted for publication. This is also the point to think about how your work will reach readers: it is worth understanding why publishing open access benefits researchers and which open access model fits your funding and licensing needs.
What to remember about the peer review process
Peer review can feel slow and, at times, opaque, especially the first time. But it follows a logical structure, and each stage exists to confirm that published research is accurate, well supported, and worth reading.
Three things are worth holding onto:
- Revision requests, minor or major, are a normal part of publishing, not a sign of failure.
- Timelines vary by journal and field, so a longer wait is not necessarily a bad sign.
- Following author guidelines closely and responding to feedback thoughtfully improves your odds of a positive outcome.
The more familiar the process becomes, the less intimidating it feels, and the better prepared you will be to submit strong work and respond to feedback with confidence.
Keep building your submission confidence
Understanding peer review is the starting point, not the finish line. Explore more publishing resources for authors to prepare your next submission.
Lippincott® brings the same gold-standard editorial rigor to open access that researchers have trusted for over 200 years. With a broad OA portfolio across health and medicine and indexing in leading databases and discoverability platforms, Lippincott accelerates your research's impact on global healthcare outcomes.
Open access with Lippincott®
Publish your research with Lippincott open access. Trusted by healthcare researchers, our platform ensures global visibility and enhanced impact while maintaining editorial integrity. Share your work widely and discover its true potential.