What does the peer review process look like?

The first step in getting the results of a study published is the study team preparing a manuscript of their findings. This manuscript is submitted to a journal whose aims and scope align with the research that was conducted. Once submitted, the paper is assessed by a journal editor and then, if considered suitable, sent to a set of reviewers, typically three, who are deemed experts in the field. 

Reviewers are tasked with examining the paper for a number of factors, including that the study was conducted properly, enough information is included to make the study reproducible, and the claims made match the results presented. At the conclusion of their review, each expert provides a recommendation to the editor, which is typically one of three decisions: accept with minor revision, accept with major revision, or reject.

Once all reviewers have provided their responses to the editor, their comments are distributed to the authors of the paper. The authors are then given a chance to respond to reviewer comments and revise the paper, as appropriate. After reviewer comments are addressed and the revised paper is sent back to the editor, a final decision is usually made (though it is possible to undergo more rounds of review). If the paper is accepted, then the journal proceeds with formatting the proofs that will eventually be released for publication.

Why bother with formal publications?

Given how extensive the peer reviewed publication process is, you might be wondering if it’s worth it. In general, publishing results of a study in a peer reviewed journal is the best way to widely distribute the information. It makes it discoverable through simple Google searches, and can therefore lead to validation of the results by other research teams. It also provides a certain level of credibility to the work, having been reviewed by experts in the field.

For treatment studies in particular, peer reviewed publication is especially important. When testing off-label treatments, for example, rigorous scientific evidence, demonstrated through these kinds of publications, is required in order to get FDA approval for on-label use. The same can be said for work that may lead to commercialization of a diagnostic test. Both of these scenarios are, of course, incredibly relevant for ME/CFS.

At OMF, we feel that the peer reviewed publication process is a critical component of achieving our mission of finding effective treatments and diagnostic markers for ME/CFS and Long COVID. To see a list of OMF-supported peer reviewed publications, visit our website.

What makes the process unpredictable and lengthy?

The peer review process can take anywhere from months to years, and there is no way to know exactly how long it will last. Some of the things that factor into this unpredictability and lengthy timeline are:

• The number of rounds of review,
• The nature of the revisions required (e.g., if more analysis needs to be conducted or if revisions are mainly in how the results are presented), and
• How long it takes to find reviewers who don’t have a conflict of interest and who accept the request to conduct a review.