| ..:: MAIN MENU ::.. |
| Submit Your Article |
| Aims and Scope |
| Editorial Board |
| Announcements |
| Author Guideline |
| Copyright |
| Publishing Ethics |
| Peer Review Process |
| ..:: INFORMATION ::.. |
| Readers |
| Authors |
| Librarian |
| ..:: TOOLS ::.. |
 |
 |
 |
Peer Review Process
Peer review obeys several stages, starting with submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Precision Manufacturing.
Stage 1: Editor appraisal
When your manuscript arrives at the JPM’s editorial office, it will receive an initial desk appraisal by the journal’s editor or editorial office. They will check that it’s broadly suitable for the journal by asking questions such as:
- Is this the manuscript suitable for JPM?
- Does the paper cover a suitable topic according to JPM’s aims & scope?
- Has the author followed the JPM author's guidelines? They will inspect that your paper satisfies the basic requirements of the journal, such as word count, language clarity, and format.
- Has the author included everything that’s required for peer review? They will inspect that there is an abstract, author affiliation details, any figures, and research-funder information.
- Does it construct a significant contribution to the existing literature?
If your article doesn’t pass these initial inspections, the editor might reject the article immediately. This is known as a ‘desk reject’, and it is a decision made at the editor’s discretion, based on their substantial experience and subject expertise. This initial screening can enable a quick decision if your manuscript isn’t suitable for the journal. This means you can submit your article to another journal quickly.
If your article does pass the initial assessment, it will move to the next stage and into peer review
Stage 2: First round of peer review
Next, the JPM editor will find and contact other researchers who are experts in your field and ask them to review the paper. A minimum of two independent reviewers is normally required for every research article. The aims and scope of each journal will outline its peer review policy in detail.
The reviewers will be asked to read and comment on your article. They may also be invited to advise the editor whether your article is suitable for publication in that journal.
So, what are the reviewers looking for? This depends on the subject area, but they will be checking that:
- Your work is original or new.
- The study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others can replicate what you have done.
- You’ve engaged with all the relevant current scholarships.
- The results are appropriately and presented.
- Your conclusions are reliable, significant, and supported by the research.
- The paper fits the scope of the journal.
- The work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.
Once the JPM editor has received and considered the reviewer reports and assessed your work, they will let you know their decision. The reviewer reports will be shared with you, along with any additional guidance from the editor.
If you get a straight acceptance, congratulations, your article is ready to move to publication. But please note that this isn’t common. Very often, you will need to revise your article and resubmit it. Or it may be that the editor decides your paper needs to be rejected by that journal.
Stage 3: Revise and resubmit
It is common for the editor and reviewers to have suggestions about improving your paper before it is published. They might have only a few straightforward recommendations (‘minor amendments’) or require more substantial changes before your paper will be accepted for publication (‘major amendments’). Authors often tell us that the reviewers’ comments can be extremely helpful in ensuring that their article is of high quality.
During this next stage of the process, you will have time to amend your article based on the reviewers’ comments, resubmitting it with any or all changes made. Make sure you know how to respond to reviewer comments.
Once you resubmit your manuscript, the JPM editor will review the revisions. They will often send it out for the second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to assess how you’ve responded to their comments.
After this, you may be asked to make further revisions, or the paper might be rejected if the editor thinks that the changes you’ve made are inadequate. However, if your revisions have now brought the paper up to the standard required by that journal, it moves to the next stage.
If you do not intend to make the revisions suggested by the journal and resubmit your paper for consideration, please ensure you formally withdraw your paper from consideration by the journal before you submit it elsewhere.
Stage 4: Accepted
And that’s it; you’ve made it through peer review. The next step is production.
How long does peer review take?
JPM editorial teams work hard to progress papers through peer review as quickly as possible. But it is important to know that this process can take time.
- The first stage is for the editor to find suitably qualified expert reviewers who are available. Given the competing demands of research life, nobody can agree to every review request they receive. It’s, therefore, not uncommon for a paper to go through several cycles of requests before the editor finds reviewers who are both willing and able to accept.
- Then, the reviewers who accept the request must find time, alongside their own research, teaching, and writing, to thoroughly consider your paper.
Please keep this in mind if you don’t receive a decision on your paper as quickly as you would like. If you’ve submitted your paper via an online system, you can use it to track the progress of your paper through peer review. Otherwise, if you need an update on the status of your paper, please get in touch with the JPM editor.
