Review Process Flowchart

Review Process Flowchart

flowchart TD
    Sub[Manuscript Submission] –> Screen[Initial Screening]
    Screen –> |Pass| Assign[Assign to Editor]
    Screen –> |Fail (out of scope)| Reject[Desk Rejection]
    Assign –> Invite{Invite Reviewers}
    Invite –> |At least 2 accepted| Review[Peer Review]
    Invite –> |Insufficient| Invite2[Invite more reviewers]
    Review –> Decision{Editor Decision}
    Decision –> |Reject| Reject
    Decision –> |Revise| Revise[Request Revisions]
    Decision –> |Accept| Accept[Acceptance]
    Revise –> SubRev[Revised Submission] –> Screen2[Editorial Check]
    Screen2 –> Invite
    Accept –> Publish[Copyediting & Publication]

This flowchart visualizes the editorial workflow from submission through publication, including screening, peer review, revision, and final steps. It illustrates typical timelines and decision points in the process.

Tables Comparing Review Models and Responsibilities

Reviewer Model	Anonymity	Typical Use Cases	Pros	Cons
Single-blind	Author blinded; reviewer knows author	Fast-moving fields, general journals	Reviewer free to speak candidly; common practice	Potential for reviewer bias; conflict risk if reviewer knows author
Double-blind	Author and reviewer both blinded	Fields with recognition bias, to ensure fairness	Reduces bias on both sides; broadly endorsed	May fail if research area is niche; more administrative work
Open	Identities disclosed to each other and often public	Promoting transparency (e.g. BMC, some journals)	Increases transparency and accountability; credit for reviewers	Reviewers may be less critical; potential for conflict or intimidation
Collaborative	Varied (team-based review)	New model, interdisciplinary work	Multiple experts improve evaluation; educational for new reviewers	Logistically complex; requires time coordination

Step	Editor Responsibilities	Reviewer Responsibilities	Target Timeline
Submission Receipt	Acknowledge submission; assign to editor-in-chief or associate editor	N/A	Within 1 day
Initial Screening	Check scope, formatting, completeness, plagiarism	N/A	1 week
Reviewer Invitation	Select and invite qualified reviewers; assign deadlines	Respond promptly to invitation (accept or decline)	Invite within 1 week
Peer Review	Send reminders as needed; monitor progress	Read manuscript; write report addressing journal criteria	2–4 weeks from acceptance
Collect Reports	Verify completeness of reports	N/A	Shortly after due date
Editorial Decision	Weigh reviews, make decision, and draft decision letter	N/A	1–2 weeks after reports
Revision Handling	Communicate decision and reviewer comments; re-evaluate revised manuscript	Respond to comments; revise manuscript accordingly	Revision deadline (3–4 weeks)
Final Checks	Ensure all revisions done; check compliance (ethics, copyrights)	N/A	1 week after final revision
Production	Send to copyediting and layout, finalize for publication	N/A	4–6 weeks after acceptance

These tables illustrate who does what at each stage, and clarify differences between review models (single vs double vs open) to help stakeholders understand our process.