SciSpace Academy
Tutorial

How an Editor-in-Chief Reviews a Research Paper: Live Walkthrough

Prof. Roger WatsonEnglishPeer review & publishing

TL;DR

1-min read

Most researchers learn how peer review works by receiving rejections. In this tutorial, Prof. Roger Watson, Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Education in Practice (Elsevier), evaluates a manuscript live and unscripted, showing how an editor actually reads and judges a submission. It is aimed at PhD students, postdocs and early-career researchers preparing a first or second submission, and at anyone invited to review a manuscript for the first time.

Key takeaways

  • Watching an editor assess a paper in real time reveals the questions asked at each stage, which author guidelines rarely spell out.
  • Editors usually start by checking fit with the journal's scope and readership, then look at the clarity of the question, the suitability of the methods and whether conclusions follow from results.
  • A desk rejection happens before peer review, often because of poor scope fit, an unclear contribution, weak methods or ignored formatting requirements.
  • Understanding the reasoning behind an editorial decision helps you prepare a submission with the editor's expectations in mind.
  • A good peer review summarises the paper's aims, judges whether the evidence supports the conclusions and offers specific, constructive suggestions.
  • New reviewers benefit from separating major concerns from minor ones and keeping a respectful tone throughout their report.
Apply it

To apply this, read your next manuscript as an editor would before submitting, and use SciSpace to check the journal's recent articles and scope against your paper.

How to do it

  1. Observe how an editor reads manuscripts

    Watch the editor read and evaluate a manuscript in real time, noting the questions asked at each point. This shows how editors review research papers beyond what author guidelines explain.

  2. Trace the reasoning behind the decision

    Follow how the editor's observations add up to an editorial decision on the submission. Understanding this reasoning helps you anticipate how your own paper will be judged.

  3. Reread your manuscript as an editor

    Apply the same questions to your own draft before submitting it. Reading your work through an editor's eyes exposes weaknesses before a rejection does.

  4. Prepare your submission with expectations

    Revise your first or second submission with the editor's expectations in mind. Addressing these points up front improves your chances in peer review.

  5. Know what reviewing involves

    If you are invited to review a manuscript, use what you observed to understand what is expected of you. This helps you write a fair, useful review.

Watch the tutorial47 min

How an Editor-in-Chief Reviews a Research Paper: Live WalkthroughPlay video: How an Editor-in-Chief Reviews a Research Paper: Live Walkthrough

Chapters

  1. Why do journal editors reject papers before peer review?
  2. How do you check journal fit before you submit?
  3. What makes a manuscript readable for editors?
  4. How should you write the title and abstract?
  5. What makes an editor take an interest in your paper?
  6. Why are the methods where trust is won or lost?
  7. What makes conclusions and statistics unconvincing?
  8. How should you present results, tables and figures?
  9. How do you write a discussion that does not overclaim?
  10. What research integrity issues do editors check?
  11. How should you cite and verify references?
  12. How should you disclose AI use in a research paper?
  13. What should you check before you press submit?
  14. What should a cover letter include?
  15. What happens after submission and how do you respond to reviewers?
  16. Which problematic studies do editors reject?
  17. Editor's pre-submission checklist and planning for rejection

Try this on SciSpace

Frequently asked questions

How do journal editors evaluate a manuscript?

Editors usually start by checking whether the paper fits the journal's scope and readership, then look at whether the research question is clear, the methods are appropriate and the conclusions follow from the results. Papers that pass this initial screen are sent to peer reviewers, whose reports inform the editor's final decision.

What is a desk rejection?

A desk rejection happens when the editor declines a manuscript before sending it for peer review. Common reasons include a poor fit with the journal's scope, an unclear contribution, weak methods or ignoring formatting and reporting requirements. Reading the journal's aims and recent articles before submitting is one of the simplest ways to avoid it.

What makes a good peer review?

A useful review summarises the paper's aims, assesses whether the methods and evidence support the conclusions, and gives specific, constructive suggestions the authors can act on. It separates major concerns from minor ones and stays respectful in tone. Reviewers should also declare conflicts of interest and keep the manuscript confidential.

Related tutorials