As opposed to an editor, a peer reviewer advises the researcher of how he would have conducted his research, and what research methods would have made a difference. While editing corrects the structure of your article whereas a peer reviewer gives you an extensive analysis.

First of all they should read the piece that they’re reviewing completely and closely, making sure that they understand it in full before they form their opinions. Secondly, they should form a strong opinion and thesis about the work overall. This will help guide the tone and organization of their review.

Many journals do not have a peer review process for certain article types, for instance, short communications or letters to the editor. However, it would be unethical for an editor to indicate to a peer reviewer that he/she should recommend an acceptance.

An editor ensures that the researcher’s opinions are best presented with an impact quality of the drafting whereas a peer reviewer, belonging from the same research area, can further advise him regarding the research.

A vital, and often overlooked, aspect of peer review is that in the current system, peer reviewers are normally not paid for their work. They are, instead, rewarded non-financially by means of acknowledgment in journals, positions on editorial boards, free journal access, discounts on author fees, etc.

But journals, even the journal take Article Processing Charge and/ or PDF downloading charge at a very high rate and get a huge amount of profit every year do not pay any money to the reviewers. …

The U.S. Review of Books regularly hires freelance book reviewers. Completing reviews should take no longer than two to three weeks, and the final product should be between 250 to 300 words. Pay: The pay isn’t listed, but the site does say reviewers are paid on the fifth of each month.

The cost of peer review has become important because of the open access movement, which hopes to make research freely available to everybody. With the current publishing model peer review is usually `free’ to authors, and publishers make their money by charging institutions to access the material.

Advantages include: Establishes the validity of research based upon the expert knowledge of other researchers in the discipline, therefore preventing falsified work from being accepted within an area of study. Provides valuable feedback so that researchers can revise and improve their papers before publication.

Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

In science, peer review typically works something like this: A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication. The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).

Do

1. Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
2. Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
3. Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
4. Be professional and respectful.
5. Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

A question often asked by authors, but also important to editors, is how long does it take between submission and publication of an article. This is a hard question to answer, but often peer review is the lengthiest part of this process. Journals usually ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 3-4 weeks.

Publishing gold open access with Elsevier means that millions of researchers globally will be able to find and read your work, completely free.

Late Reviews Once the required number of reviewers have agreed to read and comment on your manuscript, we then have to wait for them to submit their review. However long the reviewer is given, there is very little the journal can do to ensure that they stick to the deadline, other than to send them reminders.

The peer review is completed once all the reviewers send the journal a detailed report with their comments on the manuscript and their recommendation. Typically, journals ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 3-4 weeks.

If the article is from a printed journal, look at the publication information in the front of the journal. If the article is from an electronic journal, go to the journal home page and look for a link to ‘About this journal’ or ‘Notes for Authors’. Here it should tell you if the articles are peer-reviewed.

When a manuscript is received by a journal, it is screened by the editor (or an associate editor). The editor will also check that the submission is not missing pages, appendices, tables, and so on.

Normally, a peer review takes me 1 or 2 days, including reading the supporting information. I almost always do it in one sitting, anything from 1 to 5 hours depending on the length of the paper. In my experience, the submission deadline for reviews usually ranges between 3 working days to up to 3 weeks.

The reasons for a paper being rejected once it has been reviewed fall mainly into two categories: (1) problems with the research; and (2) problems with the writing/presentation of the paper. A paper may be rejected because of problems with the research on which it is based.

Because the manuscript may already be under review, changing an already submitted manuscript is normally not possible. You can, however, edit the metadata (for example, add authors).

Write a clear and concise letter, signed by all authors, explaining the situation surrounding the manuscript, and the reason(s) for its withdrawal. Often, through the online manuscript submission process, there is a tab or link to directly “contact the editor”, or you can look up his/her email from the website.

Q: How to write a withdrawal letter to the journal

1. Dear Mr. XXX [Editor’s Name],
2. I would like to withdraw my manuscript titled XXXX [Title of paper] from further consideration by your journal.
3. Please confirm that the withdrawal process is complete.
4. Sincerely,
5. XXXX [Your name and contact details]

Answer: It is perfectly normal for a submission to remain with the editor for over two weeks. The time taken for the different stages varies from journal to journal, but it is not uncommon for the journal system to show a “with editor” status for over a month after submission.

Editors reject manuscripts at this stage for one or more technical reasons: The manuscript is missing essential elements or sections required by the journal. The manuscript subject falls outside of the Aims and Scope of the selected journal or is not likely to be of interest to the readership of the selected journal.