Peer review is the process of having independent experts in the same field examine a manuscript before journal publication. Reviewers probe originality, methodological soundness, fit between data and claims, ethics, and contribution to the literature. Editors decide; reviewers advise. Models include single-blind, double-blind, and open review—each with different bias and transparency trade-offs.
Working peer review is part of science’s self-correction—imperfectly. Reviewer fatigue, bias, delay, or shallow reports happen. Still, a hallmark of predatory journals is the practical absence of serious peer review. “Acceptance in 24 hours” marketing is a red flag.
Indexing bodies (WoS, Scopus, TR Dizin) inspect peer-review policy and practice when admitting journals. Preprints are pre-review sharing; they do not replace peer review, they complement it. Open access and peer review are independent: paying an APC does not guarantee quality.
Good author practice: point-by-point responses, transparent data, declared conflicts of interest. In Turkish promotion language, “peer-reviewed journal” assumes real review—it is the candidate’s job to verify. The predatory-journals and indexing entries sharpen that distinction.
When you revise a preprint, update the archive record under its versioning rules so readers are not stuck on a stale draft. Check the call text for whether funders require a preprint under open-science rules.
When in doubt, do not submit: one month of delay is far cheaper than a predatory acceptance letter. Asking a mentor, librarian, or institutional publishing desk usually speeds that decision.
Re-verify index coverage yearly—journals can be delisted, and an old screenshot can go stale in a dossier. A final check on the Master Journal List or Scopus Sources right before application season is essential.
Archiving reviewer reports is a simple discipline that strengthens your hand in later revisions and ethics queries. Numbered point-by-point replies to major revisions also make the editor’s job easier.