That's exciting news! The **independent review stage** (also known as **peer review**) is where the core scholarly evaluation of your work happens. Here's a detailed breakdown of what typically happens next:
1. **Selection of Reviewers:**
* The journal editor (often the handling Associate Editor) identifies **2-4 independent experts** in your specific field who are qualified to assess your manuscript.
* Selection is based on expertise, publication record, lack of conflict of interest, and sometimes reviewer availability or willingness.
* This step itself can take time as reviewers are busy and may decline invitations.
2. **Invitation & Acceptance:**
* Reviewers are formally invited by the journal's editorial system.
* They are given a deadline (usually **several weeks, often 2-4 weeks, but can vary significantly**) to accept or decline the invitation and submit their review.
* If reviewers decline, the editor must find replacements, which can add to the timeline.
3. **The Review Process:**
* **Reviewers Receive Manuscript:** Accepted reviewers get access to your manuscript (usually anonymized, depending on the journal's review model).
* **In-Depth Evaluation:** Reviewers critically evaluate your work based on criteria like:
* **Originality/Significance:** Is the work novel and important to the field?
* **Methodology:** Is the approach sound, rigorous, and appropriate? Are methods described clearly and reproducibly?
* **Results & Analysis:** Are results presented clearly? Are analyses appropriate and correctly interpreted? Do conclusions follow logically from the data?
* **Clarity & Presentation:** Is the manuscript well-written, well-organized, and easy to follow? Are figures/tables effective?
* **Relevance to Journal Scope:** Does it fit the journal's aims and audience?
* **Literature Review:** Is the background adequate and relevant literature cited?
* **Writing the Report:** Each reviewer prepares a confidential report for the editor. This typically includes:
* A summary of the paper's main contribution.
* Specific comments (major and minor) highlighting strengths and weaknesses.
* Specific suggestions for improvement.
* A confidential recommendation to the editor (see point 4).
4. **Reviewer Recommendations:**
* Reviewers usually choose one of the following confidential recommendations for the editor:
* **Accept (as is - very rare):** Requires no revisions.
* **Minor Revisions:** Relatively small, straightforward changes needed. Often reviewed only by the editor upon resubmission.
* **Major Revisions:** Significant changes required (e.g., additional analysis, rewriting sections, addressing fundamental concerns). Usually sent back to original reviewers for re-evaluation.
* **Reject:** The manuscript has fundamental flaws or is not suitable for the journal. May include encouragement to revise and submit elsewhere.
5. **Editor's Decision:**
* Once all reviews are received, the **handling editor synthesizes the reviewers' reports and recommendations**.
* The editor makes the **final decision** based on the reviews, their own assessment, and the journal's standards and scope. This decision may not always align perfectly with every reviewer's recommendation (e.g., an editor might offer "Major Revisions" even if one reviewer said "Reject").
* The editor writes a decision letter summarizing the key points from the reviews and outlining the next steps.
6. **Communication of Decision to You:**
* You will receive an **official decision email** from the journal's editorial system (e.g., Editorial Manager, ScholarOne).
* This email will include:
* The editor's decision (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject).
* The editor's summary letter.
* The full, anonymized reviewer reports (or occasionally, an anonymized summary if reports conflict significantly).
**What This Means for You Now & Timeline:**
* **Patience is Key:** The independent review stage is often the **longest part** of the publication process. It can take anywhere from **several weeks to several months**, depending on:
* Field and journal.
* Availability and responsiveness of reviewers.
* Complexity of the manuscript.
* Journal's workload.
* **Radio Silence is Normal:** Don't be alarmed if you hear nothing for weeks or even a couple of months. This usually means the editor is waiting for reviews or synthesizing them.
* **Do Not Contact Reviewers:** All communication goes through the journal editor.
* **What You Should Do:**
* **Wait Patiently:** Set up alerts if the system allows, but avoid constantly checking or emailing the editor prematurely.
* **Prepare for Next Steps:** Mentally prepare to receive critical feedback. Start thinking about how you might respond to potential requests for revisions.
* **Continue Your Work:** Focus on other projects or research.
* **Consider a Backup Plan:** While waiting, think about other potential journals in case of rejection (but don't submit elsewhere yet!).
**Possible Outcomes After Review (You'll find out in the decision email):**
1. **Accept (Rare):** Celebrate! Minor formatting edits might follow.
2. **Minor Revisions:** Address the points clearly and systematically. Resubmit by the deadline. Often approved by the editor without re-review.
3. **Major Revisions:** This is common and a positive sign the journal sees potential. Address *all* reviewer and editor comments thoroughly. Write a detailed point-by-point response letter explaining your changes. Resubmit by the deadline. The revised manuscript will likely go back to the original reviewers.
4. **Reject:** Don't be discouraged. Carefully consider the reviewers' comments. Use them to improve the manuscript significantly before submitting to another journal.
**Key Takeaway:** The ball is now in the reviewers' and editor's court. Your job is to wait patiently while experts in your field evaluate your work. Use this time productively, and be prepared to thoughtfully address the feedback you receive when the decision arrives. Good luck!
