The Peer-Review currently averages at 61 days from submission to acceptance across our 50+ journals. It varies across journals for a number of reasons (e.g. some fields have reviewers who are on field work and out of contact for a time, and some fields do more iterations in the discussion forum). The time period also depends on the article type selected from the broad range Frontiers offers its authors.
Based on the surveys conducted with authors, reviewers and editors regarding the review process, 73-76% of respondents “Strongly agreed” or “Agreed” that Frontiers’ peer-review process is a significant improvement on traditional peer review, and 86-91% of respondents rated the peer-review process as “Excellent” or “Good” (view more details of the survey here). But even with these exceptional survey results, we believe we can always improve.
Based on feedback we get from the authors, reviewers and editors who use our Collaborative Peer Review platform, we are continuously releasing new features to make the process even more effective and engaging for all involved.
What is the Reviewer Looking for?
Originality, scientific significance, conciseness, precision, and completeness
During their first read-through reviewers will be assessing your argument’s construction, the clarity of the language, and content. They will be asking themselves the following questions:
- What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
- How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
- Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
- If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
- If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
- Is the argument well-constructed and clear? Are there any factual errors or invalid arguments?
Reviewer may also consider the following:
- Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
- Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
- Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
- Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
- Is the paper an appropriate length?
- Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?
Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for any major issues, such as:
- Are there any major flaws?
- If experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
- Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust?
- Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
- Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
- Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
- Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
- Does it follow best practice and meet ethical standards? Are there any ethical issues?
Reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected, such as:
- Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
- Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
- Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled?
Possible Outcomes of Peer Review
The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. To the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:
- Journal’s aims and audience
- State of knowledge in the field
- Level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal
Following represent the range of possible outcomes:
Accept:
- Accept without any changes: Journal will publish the paper in its original form.
- Accept with minor revisions: Journal will publish the paper after the author to make small corrections.
- Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): Journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors
Reject:
- Journal will not publish the paper.
- The editor may suggest better journal options for the paper to be published within Wiley. Our Transfer Desk may provide a list of appropriate journals which match the scope of the manuscript submitted.
Decision outcome will be accompanied by any relevant reviewer reports and some commentary from the editor that explains why the decision has been reached. If the decision involves revision for the author, the required changes should be clearly stated in the decision letter and review reports. Author can then respond to each point in turn.
Common Reasons for Rejection
Manuscript fails the technical screening: Before manuscripts are sent to the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, many editorial offices first perform some checks. The main reasons that papers can be rejected at this stage are:
- Article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal (submitting the same paper to multiple journals at the same time is not allowed)
- Manuscript is insufficiently well prepared; for example, lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references, and tables and figures
- English is not of sufficient quality to allow a useful peer review to take place
- Figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read
- Article does not conform to the most important aspects of the specific journal’s Author Guidelines
Manuscript does not fall within the Aims and Scope of the journal: Work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journal
Manuscript is incomplete: For example, the article contains observations but is not a full study or it discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work
Clear hypothesis or research aim was not established or the question behind the work is not of interest in the field
Goal of the research was over-ambitious, and hence it could not realistically be achieved
There are flaws in the procedures and/or analysis of the data:
- The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics
- The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated
- The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field
Conclusions were exaggerated: The conclusions cannot be justified based on the rest of the paper
- Arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid
- Data do not support the conclusions
- Conclusions ignore large portions of the literature
Research topic was of little significance:
Work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible
It is archival, or of marginal interest to the field; it is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
FAQs
How long does peer review take?
Peer review typically takes 4 to 12 weeks, but times vary by journal and field.
Why does peer review take so long?
Delays occur due to reviewer availability, revisions, and journal workload.
Can peer review take more than 6 months?
Yes, some reviews take 6 months or longer, especially in high-impact journals.
How can I speed up the peer review process?
Submit a well-prepared manuscript and follow journal guidelines carefully.
Do all journals have the same peer review time?
No, review times vary; some take a few weeks, while others take several months.
What are the fastest peer-reviewed journals?
Some journals offer rapid review (1-4 weeks); check journal policies before submission.
What should I do if my paper is stuck in peer review?
Contact the journal editor for an update if it exceeds the expected timeline.
Is peer review faster for open-access journals?
Some open-access journals offer faster reviews, but it depends on their process.
How long does a desk rejection take?
Most desk rejections happen within a few days to 2 weeks.
What happens after peer review?
The editor may accept, reject, or request revisions based on reviewer feedback.
