Streamlining the path to publication, part four: Post-submission

In the previous posts in our blog series, 'Streamlining the path to publication', we explored the key steps leading up to manuscript submission, from selecting an appropriate target journal to drafting and preparing the manuscript. In this final post, we focus on what happens next, including peer review and opportunities to improve future publications.

Familiarising yourself with the peer review process

Once your manuscript has been submitted to an appropriate journal, the next stage is the desk review or screening process. Initially, the journal’s editorial board typically evaluates the manuscript for scope alignment, quality, formatting, completeness, and ethical considerations. If the manuscript is considered a good fit for the journal, the editor needs to find 2-4 external peer reviewers who can evaluate your work. Peer review is the process by which experts in the field assess research.

Understanding why peer review is important, how the process takes place in practice, and how to engage with reviewers constructively can make the experience more manageable. Reviewers evaluate all aspects of the work, including originality and novelty, the rationale or purpose of the research, the strength of the methodology, the quality of writing, and the overall contribution to the field. Their role is not only to recommend whether a paper should be accepted, revised, or rejected, but also to provide feedback that can enhance the manuscript, ensuring that published research is robust and credible.

Once your paper has been peer reviewed, the journal editor collates feedback and makes a decision. The main outcomes are:

1. Acceptance: The manuscript is ready to be published as-is or subject to minor technical formatting.

2. Minor Revision: The paper shows strong merit but requires slight adjustments to arguments, references, or clarity.

3. Major Revision: Substantial changes—such as new experiments, expanded data analysis, or reframing the core thesis—are necessary before publication can be considered.

4. Reject and Resubmit: The manuscript is rejected in its current form, but the editor encourages you to submit a completely new version addressing the referees' critiques.

5. Rejection: The paper does not meet the journal’s standards, scope, or quality threshold and will not be published.

Addressing reviewer feedback during revision

If you receive reviewer comments, it is important to remember that reviewers have taken the time to carefully read and evaluate your work, and they share your goal: to publish a high-quality manuscript. Approaching this revision stage with a positive, open mindset and patience is valuable for reflecting on the feedback and considering how best to respond before amending your work.

When preparing a revised version, you should clearly respond to each comment using a systematic approach. This involves writing a detailed response letter, which goes point-by-point through each reviewer's comments. This should list each reviewer’s comment, followed by an explanation of how it has been addressed and where the update appears in the revised manuscript. In some cases, you may disagree with a particular suggestion. While this is acceptable, always explain your reasoning in respectful language and, where possible, support it with evidence.

It is also valuable to maintain open communication with the journal editor during this stage, as they often oversee the review process. Depending on the journal, editors may also help to clarify comments or provide guidance if reviewer suggestions seem to conflict with one another.

Understanding access options

Another decision that authors encounter during the publication process is whether to publish open access. Open access publishing makes research freely available to readers without financial or subscription barriers. This can increase the visibility of your work, making it accessible to a broader audience and improving engagement and citation impact. However, different journals have different open access policies, and many charge article processing fees. Therefore, it is useful to understand your target journal’s publication options, as well as its budget constraints and funding support.

Learning from feedback and staying up-to-date with new research

Importantly, reviewer feedback offers a valuable opportunity to learn and highlights areas for strengthening the paper. Over time, engaging with this feedback may help with communicating research findings more effectively and support the development of future publications. In addition, staying informed about emerging research in your field remains important beyond the submission of publications for identifying ongoing data gaps.

Acceptance and production

If your paper is accepted, the journal will edit it for grammar, style, and formatting before sharing a PDF proof of how your paper will look in print. You will need to check everything very carefully, as this is your last chance to catch any errors. Once you're happy with it, the paper will be published online (and then in print, if the journal still does print versions).

At Synthesis, we help our clients tell the right story to the right audience at the right time. Contact us at info@synthesishealth.co.uk to find out more about our end-to-end publications support, synthesising strategic insight, editorial excellence, and scientific fluency.