Assessing reviews and making decisions
Assessing reviews and making decisions
Editor Center > Finding reviewers > Reviews and decisions
Navigate the process of assessing reviews and making final decisions by weighing reviewer feedback, applying publication criteria, and crafting clear decision letters.
As an Academic Editor, you play a critical role in adjudicating peer review feedback and guiding manuscripts through the editorial process. Decisions should be based on publication criteria and reviewer input.
You are expected to handle manuscripts through to a final decision (accept or reject). If you are not able to complete your assignment(s) for any reason, please contact your journal office as soon as possible.
We provide a structured reviewer form to ensure evaluations focus on publication criteria.
Peer review is intended for scientific debate, so discrepancies between reviewers are common. If reviewers disagree or provide unfocused feedback, please apply the following guidance to assess the feedback and determine your next action:
- Determine which comments must be addressed by the author to meet publication criteria and which are non-essential.
- Respect reviewer integrity—do not edit their comments directly. Instead, guide authors on which parts they can disregard.
- Give weight to comments based on individual expertise.
- If needed, ask reviewers to expand their comments or request input from an additional reviewer.
- Always follow our ethical publishing practice guidance.
Editorial decisions should combine reviewer feedback and publication criteria to ensure manuscripts meet our standards. Please review the decision options and how to handle revised manuscripts.
Decision options
To support you, we have outlined the available decision options, when to use them, and what happens next:
Major revision
When to use it
The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial changes.
Next steps
The authors revise and resubmit. Upon resubmission, you may re-invite original reviewers or issue a decision on your own.
Minor revision
When to use it
The manuscript is nearly ready for publication, requiring only small adjustments.
Next steps
The authors revise and resubmit. Upon resubmission, verify changes and usually you can accept without re-inviting reviewers.
Accept
When to use it
The manuscript meets publication criteria. External review must precede acceptance.
Next steps
The manuscript proceeds to production for publication.
Reject
When to use it
The manuscript does not meet publication criteria or requires extensive revisions beyond feasibility.
Next steps
No further action unless the authors request an appeal or resubmit as a new submission.
Reject and transfer*
When to use it
The manuscript is more suitable for another PLOS journal.
Next steps
The journal office reviews and facilitates transfer. Authors may accept or decline the recommendation.
*The reject and transfer option is not available for manuscripts submitted to PLOS One
Handling revised manuscripts (R1+)
After authors return a revised manuscript, several options are available to you. Your action will depend on your editorial review of the revised version.
Please use the following guidance when you have received a revised manuscript:
- If the manuscript is ready for publication, issue an accept decision.
- If additional reviewer input is needed, re-invite original reviewers (avoid inviting new reviewers unless necessary).
- If authors did not adequately address comments, issue another revision decision or rejection.
Aim for no more than two rounds of revision before a final decision.
After the authors submit their revision, the manuscript goes to your journal office for a technical review and will not be visible in your account. You will receive an email once the manuscript is back in your account and ready for you to take the next action.
A strong decision letter provides clear guidance for authors on the next steps. Editorial Manager (EM) offers decision letter templates, but it is your responsibility to customize them.
A good decision letter:
- Keeps authors in mind and provides constructive, actionable feedback.
- Gives context to reviews and clarifies which comments are essential and which can be disregarded.
- Clearly states required revisions so that authors are able to revise accordingly.
- For reject decisions, explains unmet publication criteria and, if relevant, outlines necessary improvements for resubmission.
Important considerations
Respond to ethics concerns
If you encounter issues such as excessive self-citation requests, email your journal office. In your decision letter, clarify that including such citations is not required for publication and those reviewers should not be invited again.
Support transparency and quality
Our journal staff routinely review editorial decisions to ensure transparency and high standards. We may follow up if there are concerns, such as missing reviews on an acceptance, potential conflicts of interest, or policy breaches.
Understand peer review visibility
If authors opt to publish their peer review history, your decision letter, reviewer comments, and author responses will be made public along with the article. Reviewers also receive a copy of your decision letter.
If you need further help
If you are unsure what to do, email us. Your journal team is here to support you. Find out how to contact your journal office on our dedicated information page.
%20web%20page%20feature%20image%20-%20Butterfly.png "Images (1200x628px) web page feature image - Butterfly")
What is next:
Handling reassignments
Related editorial resources
Guide to Editorial Manager
Frequently asked questions
