Hi Boffin99, Thank you for the congrats! I'm not really sure what you are asking ( hubby is in Silicon Valley atm) so I'll do my best to answer. Sometimes researchers are invited to give reviews about the field of research they have expertise in ( last year my hubby was asked to do one for Nature Review Genetics for instance). Whether they have been invited or simply submit a paper to a journal, they go through peer review. That means usually there are 3 or 4 experts in the field going over your paper with a fine tooth comb (picture an interrogation room haha). Questioning things like the methodology, the veracity of your findings, the statistical strength etc. After a few weeks they give their feedback, ask questions, and sometimes require more work to prove your findings. All of the issues raised need to be addressed by the authors. Some suggestions or criticisms can be debated and proven to be unnecessary or completely wrong. The authors response goes back to the reviewers and then they decide whether to suggest more changes, publish or reject outright. Say for instance, 3 reviewers accept the paper and 1 rejects, the editor then has the final call. Depending on what they expect the researcher to do, (for example go back in the lab to do more bench work, beef up the statistical analysis etc) the time to get final acceptance or rejection notification can take weeks, months, even (rarely) a year! It can be very frustrating when you address all suggestions and criticisms and then still get a rejection. That means you either dispute the outcome or start again at a different journal. Sometimes it is quite an arduous process - like giving birth to an elephant. Other times it's almost too easy and you get an acceptance with no changes required in days! My husband has had around 180 papers accepted in journals, each review process is different. Keeps him on his toes to say the least
. I hope I answered your question! If not, maybe rephrase it so I get what you mean
(20min delay)