Skip to main content

Scholarly publishing

A guide to issues in scholarly communication, including publishing, institutional repositories, open access, copyright, and author rights.

Publishing Process Overview

Peer Review

The peer review process is a form of quality assurance. During this process, experts in your field consider the merits of your work. They provide journal editors with an impartial decision about whether or not to publish, as well as how to improve an article already accepted for publication.

Methods of peer review.

Method Description Discipline usage
Single-blind review

The reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are.

Commonly used in science disciplines
Double-blind review The reviewers do not know who the authors are, and the authors do not know who the reviewers are.  Common in Humanities & Social Sciences
Open review The reviewers are publicly known and the reviews are transparent (can be viewed). *This should not be confused with post-publication peer review where anyone can contribute to the peer review process. Used across disciplines

Peer Review Process

This diagram represents the typical double-blind peer review process.

Author Responsibilities


Create:   a Researcher Profile to ensure you receive credit for YOUR work 

Save:     the authors accepted version (post print) of your manuscript to archive and promote your research in Research Bank

Contact: your Librarian for support

Common reasons for rejection

To be accepted for publication, a paper must contribute to and advance existing knowledge. Reasons for rejection commonly fall into four categories:


  • Lack of constructive arguments
  • Too many spelling/grammatical errors
  • Poor structure
  • Not scholarly


  • Not enough familiarity with the journal
  • Too narrow/too broad


  • Theoretically or methodologically flawed
  • Insignificant/small sample

Literature Review

  • Shallow literature review
  • Lack of reference to similar or contrary research findings