When is one reviewer enough?

Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, CNE, ANEF

Why This Matters: Editorial circumstances may arise when one peer review provides sufficient information to support an informed decision.
What judgment this supports: One peer review may provide enough credible, relevant, and thoughtful information to make a fair editorial decision.
How an editor might use this: Use the considerations in this article to assess whether you have enough information to make an acceptance decision or need additional peer review.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Already a subscriber? Log in here

Why this matters: Recruiting strong peer reviewers is the foundation of a journal’s quality control system.
What judgment this supports: Reviewer communities are dynamic; building them requires more than simply “finding” reviewers.
How an editor might use this: Use targeted outreach and long-term relationship management to recruit and sustain a strong reviewer community.

Access is available to subscribers.

Join us for practical guidance, real editorial decisions,

and to learn more about the systems that shape scholarly publishing.

Already a subscriber? Log in here

Why this matters: Editors often default to academic credentials when selecting peer reviewers, but this approach may overlook people with valuable content expertise and lived experience.
What judgment this supports: Matching reviewer qualifications to manuscript type, purpose, and content rather than relying solely on formal academic degrees.
How an editor might use this: To broaden reviewer pools, strengthen manuscript evaluation, and develop new reviewers through mentorship and guided participation.