Peer-review process

This peer-review flowchart shows the process through which a paper is reviewed and published: the editor tests it against aims and scope, runs a similarity check, and returns it if it is out of scope. In-scope papers are sent to three reviewers; missing reports are nudged rather than waited on forever. Reject and out-of-scope share a return to the authors. A major revision is reassigned to reviewers; a minor one comes back to the editor, then copy-edit, page proofs, and print.

People draw this one to explain a journal’s process to new authors, to show why a “revise and resubmit” is not the same as a typos pass, or to make it clear why not every paper reaches reviewers. The key decision point of the verdict outcome has multiple possible outcomes that are each handled differently: major work re-enters reviewer assignment, minor work does not, and both reject and out-of-scope end at the same returned-to-authors terminal.

Open in editor

Mermaid source

---
title: Peer-review process
---
flowchart LR
  submit([Paper submitted]) --> desk[Editor reads the abstract]
  aims@{ shape: doc, label: "Aims and scope" } -. tested against .-> desk
  desk --> similarity[Run the similarity check]
  similarity --> fit{In scope?}
  fit -->|No| out([Returned to authors])
  fit -->|Yes| assign[Find three reviewers]
  pool[(Reviewer pool)] -. suggests .-> assign
  assign --> chase{Reports in?}
  chase -->|No| nudge[Nudge the slow one]
  nudge --> chase
  chase -->|Yes| verdict{Verdict?}
  verdict -->|Reject| out
  verdict -->|Major| major[Authors rewrite and resubmit]
  major --> assign
  verdict -->|Minor| minor[Authors tidy the details]
  minor --> recheck[Editor checks the revision]
  recheck --> copy
  verdict -->|Accept| copy[Copy-edit and typeset]
  copy --> proofs@{ shape: doc, label: "Page proofs" }
  proofs --> published([Published])

Stock Mermaid vs Line9 on this peer-review process

Run the same source through the stock Mermaid engine and it often will not look as good. In some cases, Mermaid is able to deliver a usable graph, but not always. On this one:

The same peer-review process through stock Mermaid — a band six times wider than it is tall, with the Major and Minor edges crossing at the verdict and their labels stacked in one patch of canvas — Stock Mermaid · same source View full size ↗

The stock Mermaid renderer elongates this flowchart into a long, unwieldy shape that can't be presented neatly on a page or screen. Using this rendering of the diagram will require scaling down to make it fit and consequently the text will be illegible. In addition, the bad positioning of nodes around the ‘Reports in?’ and ‘Verdict?’ decision points causes edges to route and cross badly. The labels on those decision edges then can't be placed unambiguously, leading to an unacceptable and unusable layout overall. Line9's render positions related nodes more closely, leading to shorter edges and, importantly, edges that don't cross so flows are easy to read and clear. Line9's aspect ratio outcome is under 2:1 so it's easy to use this render of the diagram at a sensible scale that keeps all labels legible.

For a fuller product comparison — layout, export, CLI, and pricing — see Line9 vs mermaid.live.

Render your own

Paste any Mermaid flowchart into the free online editor — no account needed. Prefer the terminal? Install the line9 CLI (free for personal use).

More scenarios on the Mermaid examples hub.

Mermaid source

Stock Mermaid vs Line9 on this peer-review process

Render your own

Related diagrams