Peer Review
How Peer Review Works
An illustrative outline of the general process. Not every manuscript passes through identical stages.
-
Submission
The author submits a manuscript through the journal’s manuscript submission system.
-
Editorial Screening
The editorial office assesses fit and completeness before review begins.
-
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers with relevant expertise are invited to evaluate the manuscript.
-
Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against the journal’s review criteria.
-
Editorial Decision
The editor considers reviewer feedback and reaches a decision.
-
Revision
Where requested, the author revises and resubmits the manuscript.
-
Final Decision
The editor reaches a final publication decision.
-
Production & Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to production and publication.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Before peer review begins, the editorial office may assess whether a submission fits the journal’s scope, meets basic submission requirements, and raises no immediate originality or ethical concerns. Passing this assessment does not guarantee that a manuscript will proceed to peer review.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are generally selected based on subject expertise, methodological expertise, relevant publication experience, research interests, and availability. Reviewer identities are not published.
What Reviewers Evaluate
Originality
Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution?
Relevance
Does the research fit the journal’s scope?
Methodology
Are the research methods appropriate and clearly explained?
Evidence
Are the claims supported by appropriate evidence?
Analysis
Is the interpretation logical and academically sound?
Clarity
Is the manuscript clearly written and structured?
References
Does it engage appropriately with relevant scholarship?
Ethics
Does the research meet applicable ethical requirements?
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively
- Provide constructive, evidence-based comments
- Maintain confidentiality
- Declare any conflicts of interest
- Avoid inappropriate personal criticism
- Avoid using unpublished manuscript information
- Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe
Confidentiality
Confidentiality expectations depend on the review model a journal uses — for example, whether reviewer identities are withheld from authors, or manuscripts are withheld from reviewers until formally invited. Each journal’s specific confidentiality policy is confirmed on its own page.
Conflicts of Interest
A reviewer should decline an invitation where a personal relationship, financial interest, direct competition, recent collaboration, institutional conflict, or other circumstance could reasonably affect impartiality. Reviewers can decline or raise a conflict directly through the journal’s own review system when invited.
Responsible Reviewing
- Remain professional and focus on the manuscript
- Give evidence-based, constructive criticism
- Avoid discriminatory or offensive language
- Respect confidential information
- Avoid requesting unnecessary self-citation
- Avoid using review reports for personal promotion
Writing a Useful Review
Overall Assessment
Briefly summarize the manuscript and its contribution.
Strengths
Identify what the manuscript does well.
Major & Minor Concerns
Separate issues affecting validity, clarity, or contribution from smaller corrections.
Recommendation
Provide the recommendation available in the journal’s review form.
Editorial Decisions
The final decision belongs to the editor or editorial team, informed by reviewer feedback — not to reviewers directly.
When a Revision Is Requested
Authors are expected to review reviewer comments, prepare a revised manuscript, respond point by point to each comment, clearly identify what changed, and resubmit within the requested timeframe.
For Authors and Reviewers
For Authors
What to Expect
Fair editorial consideration, review from relevant expertise where possible, constructive feedback, a clear editorial decision, and the opportunity to respond to revisions. Peer review does not guarantee acceptance, positive reviews, or a specific timeline.
For Reviewers
Why It Matters
Peer review helps evaluate scholarly contribution, methodological soundness, and clarity before publication. Reviewers with relevant expertise can accept or decline an invitation and submit feedback through the journal’s review system.
Join the Reviewer Community
Researchers with relevant expertise can contribute to the evaluation of scholarly research published through PenScholar Journals. Reviewers are generally expected to bring subject expertise, research experience, and familiarity with scholarly research methods.
Peer Review Ethics
Peer review at PenScholar Journals is grounded in confidentiality, disclosed conflicts of interest, reviewer independence, and editorial responsibility for the final decision. See PenScholar’s publication ethics policy for the complete framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
What type of peer review does the journal use?
The review model varies by journal and is confirmed on that journal’s page once finalized.
How are reviewers selected?
Reviewers are generally selected based on subject expertise, methodological expertise, and relevant research experience.
Can I decline a review invitation?
Yes. Reviewers may decline an invitation, particularly where a conflict of interest or lack of relevant expertise exists.
What should I do if I have a conflict of interest?
Reviewers with a personal, financial, or professional conflict of interest should decline the review and inform the editorial office.
How confidential is the review process?
Confidentiality expectations depend on the review model used by the journal; see that journal’s policy for specifics.
What should a review report include?
A useful review generally includes an overall assessment, identified strengths, major and minor concerns, and a recommendation.
Who makes the final publication decision?
The editor or editorial team makes the final decision, informed by reviewer feedback.
Can authors respond to reviewer comments?
Yes. Where a revision is requested, authors respond to reviewer comments as part of preparing the revised manuscript.