A reviewer report
Expert advice to the editor, not the decision itself.
Sources and scope · Guide reviewed September 22, 2026
- Coverage
- Author-side status interpretation, peer-review model description, editorial decision boundaries, and next-action records
- Source basis
- Five current standards, guidance, and first-party publisher process sources from NISO, ICMJE, PLOS ONE, and BMJ
Prepared by the Manusights editorial team. Publisher and institutional instructions take precedence.
Submission status desk
Decode the status.
Do not invent the outcome.
A dashboard label is an operational signal, not a prediction. Record the exact label, recover the publisher definition, state the minimum conclusion, and choose the next controlled action.
7-stage decoderNISO model recordPLOS and BMJ examplesEdition 2026.09.22-peer-review-1
Four-page author and teaching pack
Peer review status and model record
Decode a live status, document the review model, keep editorial authority visible, and record a defensible next action. Licensed CC BY 4.0 for the original Manusights framework.
- Edition
- 2026.09.22-peer-review-1
- Format
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- Evidence reviewed
- September 22, 2026
Decision boundary
Reviewers advise. Editors decide.
Reviewers advise. Editors decide. A journal may decline external review, may reach a decision that differs from reviewer recommendations, and may consider suitability as well as technical quality. ICMJE also notes that peer-review processes vary and asks journals to publish clear descriptions. Source C
A dashboard status
A publisher-defined operational label, not a probability.
A decision letter
The controlling communication for the next author action.
Author-side workflow
Seven stages, three questions each
These stages are a navigation frame, not a universal publisher taxonomy. For every stage, separate the observable fact from the tempting inference and the next action you control.
- 1
Intake and technical checks
Establishes
The journal received the submission and is checking administrative, formatting, disclosure, policy, or technical requirements.
Does not establish
It does not show that an editor has judged the manuscript suitable or that external reviewers have been invited.
Next controlled action
Keep the submitted files and confirmation together. Respond only to concrete journal requests and preserve every corrected version.
- 2
Editor assignment and suitability
Establishes
The journal is identifying or has assigned an editor who can assess scope, policy, and editorial suitability.
Does not establish
It does not show that external review will occur or that the editor has reached a favorable scientific judgment.
Next controlled action
Check the journal's stated editorial process. Do not interpret a quiet status change as an informal decision.
- 3
Reviewer recruitment
Establishes
The editor or journal office is seeking external experts under the journal's own process.
Does not establish
An invitation is not an accepted assignment, and an accepted assignment is not a completed report.
Next controlled action
Use the journal's published status guidance and contact threshold. Reviewer recruitment can require multiple invitations.
- 4
External review phase
Establishes
Only what the named journal says its status means. The same phrase can represent different operational states at different publishers.
Does not establish
It does not reveal the likely decision, the number or direction of reports, or whether every invited reviewer has accepted.
Next controlled action
Record the exact label, date observed, journal definition, and source URL. Avoid translating it into an outcome.
- 5
Reviews returned and editor deliberation
Establishes
At least some review work or a draft editorial decision exists, as defined by the journal's status documentation.
Does not establish
Completed reports are not a final decision. Reviewers advise; the editor remains responsible for the decision.
Next controlled action
Wait for the formal decision letter. Prepare the team to classify requests, evidence needs, and author responsibilities only after it arrives.
- 6
Revision and reconsideration
Establishes
The editor has invited a new version under stated conditions and a deadline or resubmission route.
Does not establish
A revision invitation is not an acceptance. The editor may decide directly or seek additional external review.
Next controlled action
Build a point-by-point response ledger, preserve line references, and distinguish completed changes from reasoned disagreements.
- 7
Acceptance and production
Establishes
Only the acceptance level named in the journal's formal communication. Some publishers distinguish editorial or provisional acceptance from formal acceptance.
Does not establish
A favorable status label does not remove final technical, integrity, licensing, authorship, or production checks.
Next controlled action
Retain the formal letter, identify the version of record workflow, complete required checks, and avoid announcing acceptance from an ambiguous dashboard label.
Why labels cannot travel alone
The same phase can carry a different status meaning
These are first-party examples, not a cross-publisher dictionary. PLOS ONE and BMJ define their own workflows differently. Always return to the named journal before acting. PLOS ONE process BMJ process
| Publisher example | Exact status | What the source establishes |
|---|---|---|
| PLOS ONEChecked September 22, 2026 | Under review | The handling editor has invited peer reviewers. The public definition does not say that every invited reviewer has accepted. |
| BMJ Author HubChecked September 22, 2026 | Peer Review in Progress | The article has secured the minimum number of required reviewers under the described BMJ workflow. |
| PLOS ONEChecked September 22, 2026 | Required reviews complete | Some or all assigned reviewers have submitted comments. This is not the final editorial decision. |
| BMJ Author HubChecked September 22, 2026 | Awaiting Editor Decision | The minimum number of reviews needed for a decision has been received; the editor will decide whether to accept, reject, or revise. |
| PLOS ONEChecked September 22, 2026 | Editorial accept decision | PLOS ONE describes this as provisional acceptance pending final formatting and technical checks before a formal accept decision. |
| BMJ Author HubChecked September 22, 2026 | In Production | The article has been accepted in the workflow described on the BMJ Author Hub and moves into final quality checks and production. |
Practical rule: if a publisher does not define the label publicly, mark its meaning unknown. Do not substitute another publisher's definition.
NISO-aligned model record
Describe the model across four elements
A label such as single anonymized describes only part of a review model. NISO organizes peer-review terminology around four elements so journals and readers can compare practices more precisely. The prompts below are Manusights paraphrases, not a reproduction of the standard. Source A Source B
01
Identity transparency
Which identities are visible to authors, reviewers, and editors at each stage?
Record the journal's exact policy rather than relying on labels such as single, double, or open review by themselves.
02
Reviewer interaction
Can reviewers interact with editors, other reviewers, or authors?
Record each permitted interaction route and whether it occurs before or after an initial report.
03
Published review information
Which parts of the review record can appear with the article?
Check separately for reports, decision letters, author responses, manuscript versions, summaries, and names.
04
Post-publication commenting
Can readers comment after publication, and who may participate?
Record whether commenting is open, invited, moderated, or unavailable, and where the policy is stated.
Original Manusights framework
Turn an ambiguous label into a defensible record
Use this five-part record for a live manuscript, a teaching case, or an author-support consultation. If the source is missing, uncertainty belongs in the record.
- 1
Observed label
Copy the exact status text, journal title, manuscript identifier, and date observed.
- 2
Publisher definition
Link the named journal or publisher page that defines the label. If none is public, mark the meaning unknown.
- 3
Minimum conclusion
Write only what the definition establishes about intake, assignment, recruitment, review, decision, or production.
- 4
Excluded inference
List the tempting conclusions the status does not support, including likely outcome, reviewer sentiment, or a promised date.
- 5
Next controlled action
Name one action, owner, and trigger: wait, answer a request, prepare a revision ledger, or inquire under the journal's policy.
Evidence and maintenance
Source record and limits
The web guide, PDF, and source record share one edition. Recheck publisher examples after a process-page change and no later than 90 days after this review. NISO terminology remains the standard owner's work; the downloadable pack reuses only the original Manusights record structure under CC BY 4.0.
- AANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023, Standard Terminology for Peer Review
NISO / Abstract; publication metadata; DOI 10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.106-2023. Supports: The purpose and publication identity of the formal peer-review terminology standard.
- BPeer Review Terminology
STM and NISO / A Standard Terminology for Peer Review. Supports: The standard's external-journal-review scope and its four descriptive elements: identity transparency, reviewer interaction, published review information, and post-publication commenting.
- CRecommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
ICMJE / Updated January 2026; section II.C.2.c, Peer Review, pages 4-5. Supports: Peer review's editorial role, editor decision ownership, variation among journal models, and the need for journals to describe their processes clearly.
- DEditorial and Peer Review Process
PLOS ONE / Understanding Manuscript Statuses; Editorial Decisions; Revisions; Accepted Manuscripts. Supports: Publisher-specific status meanings, decision routes, reconsideration, and the distinction between editorial and formal acceptance.
- EThe peer review process
BMJ Author Hub / Types of peer review; Peer review process; Timeframes. Supports: Publisher-specific status meanings, reviewer recruitment, decision ownership, and the instruction to use each journal's own timing information.
Boundary: An author-side record for interpreting journal submission statuses and documenting a journal's peer-review model. It does not predict a decision, estimate a timeline, or replace the named journal's current instructions. A status record is not a recommendation to contact an editor, appeal a decision, or withdraw a manuscript.
Common questions
What authors can safely infer
Does under review mean reviewers have accepted the assignment?
Not universally. PLOS ONE says its Under review status means the handling editor has invited reviewers. BMJ uses Peer Review in Progress after the minimum required reviewers have been secured. Read the named journal's definition before inferring what happened.
Do reviewers decide whether a manuscript is accepted?
No. Reviewers advise. ICMJE states that the editor is ultimately responsible for selecting journal content and is not obligated to follow favorable or unfavorable reviewer recommendations.
Does required reviews complete mean the paper will be accepted?
No. PLOS ONE defines the status as some or all assigned reviewers having submitted comments. The editor still has to reach and communicate a decision.
What is the difference between single, double, and open peer review?
Those labels mainly summarize identity visibility, but they can hide other important differences. The NISO framework also records reviewer interactions, which review information is published, and whether post-publication commenting is available.
How long should peer review take?
There is no defensible universal duration. Recruitment, report completion, editorial deliberation, and revision are separate stages. Use the journal's current published metrics or contact guidance and record the exact basis for any expectation.
Cite this resource
Citation formats
Free to use and cite, with attribution. See the reuse policy for what you may republish.
- APA
- Manusights. (2026). Peer review status and model record. Edition 2026.09.22-peer-review-1. https://manusights.com/resources/peer-review-explained
- MLA
- Manusights. "Peer Review Status and Model Record." Manusights, 22 Sept. 2026, https://manusights.com/resources/peer-review-explained.
- Vancouver
- Manusights. Peer review status and model record [Internet]. 2026 Sep 22. Available from: https://manusights.com/resources/peer-review-explained