Brief tutorial about the peer review process, tips and do nots. By Andrea Hajek, Academic Editor.

1. The peer review
process
Revising journal articles in an
effective way
Andrea Hajek, PhD
Your Editing Alternative

2. 1. Getting it right: anticipating
your peer reviewers
• your submission is usually sent to a minimum of
two scholars in your discipline
• the reviewers will assess the quality of your
article, and at times also its suitability for
publication in the journal
• their feedback will eventually form the basis of
the editor’s decision: accept, minor revisions,
major revision, revise and resubmit, or reject

3. A few tips
• know the (big) names in your field, read their work,
and make references to them where appropriate
(ideally to articles published in the same journal)
• take a look at the editorial board: peer reviewers are
often selected from there
• don’t write a literature review: the reviewers will be
familiar with your research area, and they will be
more interested in seeing you challenge existing
theories, apply them to new case studies or engage
in current debates

4. 2. Patience is the magic word
• the peer review process is a long process, so
calculate several months between submission
and decision
• don’t hesitate, though, to ask for an update if the
process prolongs: sometimes journal editors
struggle to find reviewers, as it has become
extremely difficult to find reviewers who have
time to spare
• just remember not to stalk editors (or their
assistants), and always show due respect

5. 3. Dealing with criticism
• peer review reports can be painful, but they are
usually helpful, so put your pride aside and try to
learn from them
• As Deborah Lupton writes in her article on revising
journal articles: “See the revision process as a way to
make your work the best it can be, and a challenge to
push yourself to improve it”
• this doesn’t mean that you must always, and a-
critically, follow the peer reviewer’s suggestions: it is
fine to disagree (politely), as long as you can motivate
your choices

6. 4. Responding to reviewers
• never offend peer reviewers or dismiss their
opinion entirely: it won’t get you anywhere and
you will not make a good impression with the
journal editors
• always carefully reflect upon the reviewer’s
comments, then copy & paste them in to a
separate document, and at the end of the
revision, write your responses under each
separate point as you go, explaining the changes
you’ve made > the more detailed your response
letter is, the better!

7. 5. Knowing when to stop
• when you receive rejection after rejection, it may
be best to consider a different journal, or to take
some time off from writing articles
• it could be that your line of research does not fit
with the genre/scope of the journal, or that it
gives ‘preference’ over a specific theoretical line
of thought that does not coincide with your
research

8. A few more tips
• always read the journal’s submission guidelines
carefully, and make sure the manuscript is formatted
according to these
• if you’re unsure about these or other issues, just write
to the editor (or editorial assistant)
• make sure the article is written in good academic
English, and that it doesn’t contain typos or missing
words
• don’t use track changes to mark your revisions, as
they can make the article unreadable: rather, highlight
changes with bold or coloured highlighting

9. Further reading
• LSE blog article on 15 steps to revising journal
articles, by Deborah Lupton
• LSE blog article on How to increase your
likelihood of publishing in peer reviewed journals
by Hugh McLaughlin
• Sage Research Methods video on How to get
published

10. Want help?
I’m the Managing Editor of a prestigious,
interdisciplinary and peer-reviewed journal,
and I have also published a lot myself (and
yes this means I’ve had articles rejected,
alas).
Visit my website to find out what services I
offer:
https://youreditingalternative.com/