What Is the Typical Number of Reviewers Assigned by Editors for Reviewing a Manuscript Submitted to Their Journal?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Submitting a manuscript to a scholarly journal can create an uncomfortable period of uncertainty. Once the status changes from an editorial check to something such as “under review,” authors often begin wondering exactly what is happening behind the submission-system screen. One of the most common questions is: what is the typical number of reviewers assigned by editors for reviewing a manuscript submitted to their journal?

The practical answer is that two independent reviewers is a very common target, although two to three reviewers is a useful general expectation for many research journals. There is no universal number that applies to every journal, discipline, manuscript type, or editorial situation. Some journals may proceed with one external reviewer in particular circumstances, while others routinely seek two or three reports. An editor may invite additional reviewers when specialist expertise, statistical assessment, methodological advice, or resolution of conflicting recommendations is required.

For example, Wiley’s guidance for journal editors states that at least two reviewers should be secured for a manuscript, while noting that further reviewers may sometimes be required. Nature states that manuscripts selected for formal review are typically sent to two or three reviewers, with additional specialists sometimes consulted. IEEE policy requires at least two qualified reviewers before an article can be accepted. These examples illustrate why authors frequently encounter two-reviewer systems while also showing why the number is not identical across scholarly publishing.

It is also important to distinguish reviewers invited from reviewers who actually agree to review. An editor may have to invite several researchers before obtaining the two or three completed reports needed for a decision. Experts may decline because of workload, lack of subject fit, conflicts of interest, or inability to meet the deadline.

Understanding this distinction can make journal-status messages considerably less confusing. A manuscript showing “reviewers invited,” “reviewer assigned,” or “under review” is moving through an editorial process whose exact mechanics depend on the journal.

This guide explains how many reviewers journals typically use, why the number varies, what editors do when reviews disagree, whether a manuscript can receive only one review, and what authors should expect after reviewers submit their reports.

Quick Answer: How Many Reviewers Are Usually Assigned to a Journal Manuscript?

For many scholarly journals, two reviewers is the most common practical benchmark, while two to three reviewers is a reasonable general range to expect. Nature, for example, says manuscripts selected for formal review are typically sent to two or three reviewers. Wiley’s editor guidance advises securing at least two reviewers per manuscript, and IEEE requires at least two qualified reviewers before acceptance.

However, there is no universal rule saying every manuscript must be evaluated by exactly two reviewers. A journal’s editorial policy, discipline, manuscript type, available expertise, peer-review model, and the consistency of the reports can all affect the number.

The editor may also invite more people than the number of reports ultimately required. If the editor wants two completed reports, for example, several invitations may be necessary because some potential reviewers will decline or fail to respond.

Authors should therefore avoid interpreting a particular number of reviewer invitations as an indication of manuscript quality or likely acceptance. The important issue is whether the editor obtains sufficient independent expert assessment to make an informed editorial decision.

Key Takeaways

• Two reviewers is a common target for research manuscripts sent for external peer review.
• Many journals use two to three reviewers, depending on their policies and the manuscript.
• The number of reviewers invited may be greater than the number of reviewers who eventually submit reports.
• Editors may seek an additional reviewer when existing reports strongly disagree.
• Specialist papers may need extra methodological, statistical, clinical, or technical expertise.
• Reviewers provide recommendations, but the editor normally makes the publication decision.
• Journal-specific author guidelines are more reliable than assuming every journal follows the same reviewer-number rule.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• The typical number of peer reviewers assigned to a manuscript
• Why two reviewers are so common
• When editors may seek three or more reviews
• What happens when reviewers disagree
• The difference between invitations, assignments, and completed reviews
• How reviewer numbers may affect the editorial timeline
• What authors should do while their paper is under review

Table of Contents

1. How many reviewers are normally assigned to a manuscript?
2. Why do many journals use two reviewers?
3. Why might a journal use three or more reviewers?
4. Reviewer invitations versus completed reviews
5. Can a journal use only one reviewer?
6. What happens when reviewers disagree?
7. Does the editor have to follow the reviewers?
8. How reviewers are selected
9. Different peer-review models
10. What manuscript-status messages may mean
11. Does having more reviewers mean something is wrong?
12. Practical manuscript examples
13. What authors should do during peer review
14. Common misunderstandings
15. Pre-submission checklist
16. How Contentxprtz can support authors
17. Summary
18. Frequently asked questions

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article is based on publicly available peer-review information from established scholarly publishers and publishing organizations, including Nature Portfolio, Wiley, IEEE, Springer Nature, Elsevier, and The BMJ.

Individual journal procedures still vary. Authors should therefore check the Instructions for Authors, editorial policies, or peer-review information for the specific journal to which they are submitting.

The examples in this article should be treated as explanations of common scholarly publishing practices rather than universal rules.

How Many Reviewers Are Normally Assigned to a Manuscript?

Two external reviewers is probably the most useful single answer for authors seeking a typical number. However, two to three reviewers better reflects the variation across major journals.

Nature states that manuscripts judged suitable for formal review are typically sent to two or three reviewers, although more may be consulted when special expertise is required. Nature Portfolio also notes that selected manuscripts generally go to at least one but usually two or more independent reviewers.

Wiley’s guidance for editors says at least two reviewers should be secured per manuscript, with further reviewers sometimes needed.

IEEE policy similarly requires at least two qualified reviewers to evaluate a submitted journal article before it can be accepted.

A journal might therefore operate in any of these ways:

Editorial situation	Possible reviewer arrangement
Standard research manuscript	Two reviewers
Journal routinely seeking broader assessment	Two or three reviewers
Highly specialized or interdisciplinary paper	Multiple reviewers covering different expertise
Statistical or methodological concern	Main reviewers plus specialist advice
Strong disagreement between reports	Additional reviewer may be consulted
Manuscript rejected at editorial screening	No external reviewers
Particular journal or article type	Procedure determined by that journal’s policy

The most important point is that journal policy takes precedence over any general average.

Why Do Many Journals Use Two Reviewers?

Two reviewers can provide independent perspectives without creating an unnecessarily large reviewing burden.

Peer review involves judgment. Two qualified researchers can legitimately evaluate the same manuscript differently because they may emphasize different aspects of the research.

One reviewer might focus heavily on:

• Study design
• Statistical analysis
• Sampling
• Experimental validity

The other might pay more attention to:

• Theoretical contribution
• Literature coverage
• Interpretation
• Clinical or practical significance
• Presentation and clarity

Having more than one assessment gives the editor additional evidence when considering whether the manuscript meets the journal’s standards.

It is important, however, not to think of peer review as a simple voting system. Two reviewers do not necessarily receive one “vote” each with the editor acting as a tie-breaker.

Reviewers advise; editors decide.

Springer Nature explains that editors reconsider manuscripts in light of reviewer reports, author responses, and their own editorial expertise before reaching a decision.

Why Might an Editor Assign Three or More Reviewers?

Editors may obtain additional reviews when the manuscript or the existing evaluations require broader expertise.

1. The manuscript crosses several disciplines

Consider a paper combining:

• Artificial intelligence
• Medical diagnosis
• Biostatistics
• Clinical practice

One reviewer may understand machine-learning methodology exceptionally well but lack clinical expertise. Another may be a clinical authority without sufficient expertise to assess the computational model.

The editor may therefore need several perspectives.

2. Statistical expertise is required

A manuscript may be scientifically interesting but use sophisticated statistical methods that require specialist evaluation.

Nature explicitly notes that additional reviewers can sometimes be sought for specialist advice, including statistics or a particular technique.

3. The reviewers strongly disagree

Imagine:

Reviewer 1: Accept after minor revisions.

Reviewer 2: Reject because the methodology is fundamentally unsuitable.

The editor does not automatically have to invite Reviewer 3. The editor may be able to resolve the disagreement independently.

However, an additional expert opinion may be useful when the disagreement concerns a technical question outside the editor’s own specialist knowledge. Wiley’s editor guidance acknowledges that further reviewers may sometimes be necessary.

4. A specialist issue appears during review

A reviewer might identify a concern relating to:

• Statistical methodology
• Research ethics
• Laboratory technique
• Qualitative analysis
• Imaging
• Software
• A specialized instrument
• A narrow theoretical issue

The editor may seek another expert specifically for that issue.

5. A journal has its own standard workflow

Some journals simply prefer more reviewer reports than others.

This is why authors should avoid assuming that three reviewers indicate a problem. It may simply reflect normal editorial policy.

Reviewers Invited vs Reviewers Assigned vs Completed Reviews

One of the most important distinctions for authors is the difference between reviewer invitations and completed reviewer reports.

Suppose an editor wants two completed reviews.

The process could look like this:

1. Editor identifies four potential reviewers.
2. Reviewer A declines.
3. Reviewer B does not respond.
4. Reviewer C accepts.
5. Reviewer D accepts.
6. Reviewers C and D submit reports.
7. The editor makes a decision.

Four researchers may therefore have been invited even though only two actually reviewed the manuscript.

Springer Nature’s description of peer review recognizes that potential reviewers must first agree to review before submitting reports, and journal guidance also notes that reviewer availability can affect the process.

This distinction helps explain why submission systems can show changing numbers of invitations or assignments.

A simple example

Journal wants: 2 reviews
Experts initially invited: 3
One accepts: 1
Two decline: 2
Additional invitations sent: 3
Two more accept: 2
Reports eventually received: 3

The invitation count can therefore become much higher than the number of reports ultimately used.

Can a Journal Assign Only One Reviewer?

Yes, this can happen, but it should not be assumed to be standard across journals.

Peer-review requirements vary considerably. Nature Portfolio says manuscripts selected for peer review go to at least one but usually two or more independent reviewers, while other organizations establish stricter minimums. IEEE, for instance, requires at least two qualified reviewers before an article can be accepted.

Consequently, receiving feedback apparently originating from one external reviewer does not by itself establish that a journal acted improperly.

Questions an author should consider include:

• What does the journal’s published peer-review policy say?
• Was another assessment conducted editorially?
• Is the article type handled differently?
• Was a specialist editor involved?
• Is the journal operating under a particular review model?

The journal’s stated editorial policy is the correct benchmark.

What Happens When Two Reviewers Disagree?

Conflicting reviews do not automatically mean that the manuscript will be rejected.

The handling editor evaluates the strength of each review rather than merely counting recommendations.

For example:

Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Possible editorial response
Minor revision	Minor revision	Revision may be invited
Major revision	Major revision	Major revision may be invited
Accept	Major revision	Editor assesses substantive concerns
Minor revision	Reject	Editor examines reasons for disagreement
Reject	Accept	Additional evaluation may be needed
Methodology concern	No methodology concern	Specialist review may be sought

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

An editor may find that a recommendation to reject is based on a misunderstanding that can reasonably be addressed. Conversely, an apparently favorable report does not require the editor to accept a manuscript if a serious issue has been identified elsewhere.

Springer Nature explains that editors weigh reviewer reports, author responses, and their own expertise when reaching decisions.

Should authors panic when reviewers disagree?

No.

Mixed reviews are frustrating, but disagreement is an ordinary possibility in scholarly evaluation. The useful response is to examine the substance of the editor’s decision letter.

If revisions are requested:

• Address every reviewer comment.
• Quote or identify the issue clearly.
• Explain the change made.
• Give page or line references where appropriate.
• If you disagree, respond respectfully and provide scholarly justification.
• Do not dismiss a comment merely because another reviewer did not raise it.

A well-structured response to reviewers can make the next editorial stage considerably easier to evaluate.

Does the Editor Have to Follow the Reviewers’ Recommendations?

No. The editor generally makes the final editorial decision.

Reviewers supply expert assessments, identify strengths and weaknesses, and advise the journal. They normally do not independently determine publication.

The BMJ explicitly describes reviewers as advising editors, while Nature explains that editors make the decision based on reviewer advice.

This distinction explains several situations authors sometimes find confusing.

A manuscript may be rejected even though one reviewer was enthusiastic.

A paper may receive another opportunity for revision even when one reviewer recommended rejection.

An editor may request changes that none of the reviewers mentioned.

The editorial decision reflects the journal’s evaluation of the complete record, not merely a numerical tally.

How Do Editors Choose Peer Reviewers?

Editors generally seek researchers with expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewer selection may consider:

• Subject knowledge
• Methodological expertise
• Publication experience
• Independence
• Conflicts of interest
• Availability
• Previous reviewing performance
• Specific techniques used in the study
• The journal’s reviewer policies

BDJ Open, a Springer Nature journal, states that reviewer selection is based on factors including expertise, reputation, and recommendations, while emphasizing the editor’s role in choosing reviewers.

Authors may sometimes be asked to suggest potential reviewers, but suggested names are recommendations rather than appointments.

Authors should never suggest reviewers in ways that compromise independence.

Potential problems include:

• Close collaborators
• Members of the same institution where prohibited
• Individuals with significant conflicts of interest
• Friends presented as independent experts
• Fabricated reviewer identities
• Email addresses controlled by the author

Ethical reviewer selection protects both the journal and the researcher.

Does the Type of Peer Review Affect the Number of Reviewers?

The peer-review model and reviewer number are separate issues.

A journal may use two reviewers under single-anonymous, double-anonymous, or open peer review.

Single-anonymous peer review

Reviewers know who the authors are, but authors normally do not know the reviewers’ identities.

Double-anonymous peer review

The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

Elsevier and Springer Nature both provide guidance on double-anonymous reviewing.

Open peer review

The degree of openness varies by journal. Reviewer identities or reports may be disclosed under particular models.

The BMJ, for example, describes its approach as fully open peer review and states that reviewer names are disclosed to authors.

Collaborative review

Wiley describes collaborative review models in which two or more reviewers may work together and potentially submit a unified report.

Therefore, seeing one report does not always mean only one person contributed, and seeing multiple reports does not necessarily tell you which anonymity model the journal uses.

What Do Common Manuscript Status Messages Mean?

Journal-management systems use different terminology, so no status label has one universal interpretation.

Still, authors commonly encounter stages resembling the following.

With Editor

The manuscript is being considered by an editor. It may be undergoing:

• Scope assessment
• Initial quality checks
• Editorial screening
• Reviewer selection

It does not necessarily mean peer review has started.

Reviewers Invited

The editor or editorial office has sent invitations to potential reviewers.

It does not mean every invited researcher will accept.

Reviewer Assigned

At least one reviewer may have accepted the invitation, although the precise meaning depends on the journal’s software.

Under Review

The manuscript is somewhere in the external review process.

Depending on the submission platform, the status may cover several underlying activities.

Reviews Completed or Required Reviews Completed

The journal may have received the target number of reports.

This still does not guarantee that an immediate decision will follow. The editor must evaluate the reports and may decide that further input is needed.

Decision in Process

The editor or editorial team may be considering the available information and preparing a decision.

Because publishers configure their systems differently, authors should avoid interpreting status wording too literally.

Does Having Three or Four Reviewers Mean Something Is Wrong With My Manuscript?

Not necessarily.

A higher number can arise for perfectly ordinary reasons.

For example:

• The manuscript is multidisciplinary.
• A statistics expert is needed.
• One reviewer recommended another specialist.
• The first reports disagreed substantially.
• The journal normally uses three reviewers.
• A particular technical component needs separate evaluation.

Similarly, a change in reviewer count does not reliably predict acceptance or rejection.

Authors understandably try to interpret every submission-system movement, but reviewer numbers are primarily an editorial workflow indicator, not a hidden acceptance score.

Practical Example 1: A Standard Experimental Research Paper

A researcher submits a laboratory study to a specialist journal.

The editor completes the initial assessment and decides that the paper is suitable for external review.

Possible workflow

• Four experts are invited.
• Two accept.
• Two decline.
• The two accepted reviewers submit reports.
• Both recommend major revisions.
• The editor invites a revision.

Number invited: 4
Number who reviewed: 2
Number of completed reports: 2

Lesson

When an author sees several reviewer invitations, that does not necessarily mean the manuscript will receive that many reviews.

The editor may simply be trying to secure the required number of willing reviewers.

Practical Example 2: An Interdisciplinary AI and Healthcare Paper

A team submits a study evaluating an artificial-intelligence model for medical diagnosis.

The manuscript involves:

• Clinical medicine
• Machine learning
• Statistical validation

The editor decides that no single reviewer can adequately cover all three dimensions.

Possible workflow

Reviewer 1: Clinical specialist
Reviewer 2: Machine-learning specialist
Reviewer 3: Statistical-methodology specialist

Three reports are therefore obtained.

Lesson

An additional reviewer may reflect the breadth and technical complexity of the research, not a weakness in the manuscript.

Nature specifically acknowledges that additional specialist advice may sometimes be needed, including statistical or technical expertise.

Practical Example 3: Two Reviewers Strongly Disagree

A management-research manuscript receives the following recommendations.

Reviewer 1: Major revision
The theoretical framing is useful, but the analysis and limitations need improvement.

Reviewer 2: Reject
The reviewer questions whether the sampling strategy can support the conclusions.

The editor examines both reviews and determines that the disagreement revolves around a specialist methodological issue.

The editor may:

1. Evaluate the issue independently.
2. Ask the existing reviewers for clarification.
3. Request an additional specialist review.
4. Invite revision if the concern appears addressable.
5. Reject if the methodological limitation is fundamental.

Lesson

A third reviewer is not necessarily a “tie-breaking vote.” The purpose is to give the editor better expert information on the disputed issue.

Practical Example 4: Editorial Rejection Before Peer Review

An author submits a manuscript and receives a rejection four days later.

The researcher wonders:

“Why did my paper have zero reviewers?”

The likely explanation is that the paper did not proceed to external peer review.

Nature explains that all submitted manuscripts are initially read editorially and that papers considered unsuitable for formal review may be rejected without being sent to external referees.

This may occur because of issues such as:

• Journal scope
• Editorial priority
• Suitability for the readership
• Manuscript type
• Fundamental presentation or methodological concerns

A desk rejection is therefore different from rejection after external peer review.

Why Reviewer Recruitment Can Take Time

The number of reviewers an editor wants and the number available at that moment are not always the same.

Potential reviewers may decline because:

• The manuscript is outside their precise expertise.
• They have insufficient time.
• They identify a conflict of interest.
• They are already handling multiple reviews.
• The deadline is impractical.
• The manuscript requires expertise they do not possess.

Springer Nature advises potential reviewers to decline when they lack sufficient expertise or time so that editors can invite someone else.

Consequently, a manuscript can remain in reviewer-selection stages even when the editor is actively working on it.

Repeated invitations are not necessarily evidence that there is something wrong with the paper.

Should Authors Suggest Peer Reviewers?

If the journal permits or requests reviewer suggestions, authors can help by proposing genuinely qualified and independent researchers.

Appropriate suggestions generally have:

• Clear expertise in the manuscript’s subject
• Relevant methodological knowledge
• No problematic relationship with the authors
• Verifiable institutional or professional identities
• No conflict that could reasonably compromise impartiality

Do not treat the reviewer-suggestion box as an opportunity to choose sympathetic readers.

The editor retains responsibility for reviewer selection and may use, reject, or supplement the author’s suggestions.

What Authors Should Do While the Manuscript Is Under Review

Once the manuscript has genuinely entered external peer review, authors usually need to allow the editorial process to proceed.

1. Check the journal’s stated timeline

Some journals publish approximate review times or provide information in their submission instructions.

Wiley notes that peer-review timelines vary by journal and advises authors to consult the particular journal’s information.

2. Do not interpret every status change negatively

A return from “under review” to an editor-related status can have several explanations.

It could mean:

• Reviews have arrived.
• Another reviewer is needed.
• The editor is assessing reports.
• An internal consultation is occurring.

Without journal-specific information, the exact meaning cannot be known.

3. Prepare for a possible revision

You can use the waiting period productively.

Review:

• Tables and figures
• Supplementary materials
• Data descriptions
• References
• Journal formatting
• Language clarity

4. Be ready for conflicting feedback

One reviewer may praise an aspect another criticizes.

Your responsibility is not to decide which reviewer “won.” Respond to the editor’s decision and address the substantive concerns systematically.

5. Contact the journal professionally when appropriate

If the review has substantially exceeded the journal’s published or indicated timeframe, a concise and courteous status enquiry is reasonable.

Avoid sending repeated messages within short intervals.

How to Respond When You Receive Two or Three Reviewer Reports

A revision decision often feels overwhelming because several reviewers may generate dozens of comments.

The most effective approach is systematic.

Step 1: Read the editor’s letter first

The editor’s instructions determine what the journal expects.

Step 2: Read every review completely

Do not begin responding immediately to the first critical comment.

Look for:

• Repeated concerns
• Contradictory requests
• Methodological issues
• Requests requiring new analysis
• Simple editorial changes
• Questions that indicate unclear writing

Step 3: Create a point-by-point response

For each comment:

1. Reproduce or summarize the reviewer point clearly.
2. State what you changed.
3. Explain why.
4. Indicate where the revision appears in the manuscript.

Step 4: Respond respectfully when you disagree

You do not have to accept every recommendation.

A professional response might explain:

• Why the requested change would conflict with the study design
• Why an analysis is not statistically appropriate
• Why a particular scope expansion is beyond the research question
• What clarification you added instead

Step 5: Make the revised manuscript easy to evaluate

Clear responses reduce the amount of effort required from editors and reviewers.

Researchers who want an additional language and presentation review before resubmission can consider professional research paper editing support. Such assistance should strengthen clarity and communication without replacing the author’s scholarly judgment or responsibility.

Common Misunderstandings About Reviewer Numbers

“My manuscript has three reviewers, so the editor must be uncertain.”

Not necessarily. Three reviewers may simply be normal for that journal or appropriate for the paper’s subject matter.

“Only two reviewers were assigned, so the journal is not rigorous.”

That conclusion is not justified. Two-reviewer systems are common, and several major publishing frameworks use or require at least two reviews in relevant circumstances.

“Reviewer 1 accepted my paper, so it should be accepted.”

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor considers the complete record.

“Two reviewers disagreed, so the editor must appoint a third.”

Not always. An experienced handling editor may be able to evaluate the disagreement directly.

“Five invitations mean five people are reviewing my manuscript.”

Not necessarily. Several invitees may decline.

“If the editor adds another reviewer, my paper is probably going to be rejected.”

There is no reliable basis for that conclusion. The editor may simply need another area of expertise or further evidence before making a decision.

“All journals follow the same peer-review system.”

They do not. Policies differ among journals, publishers, fields, and article types.

A Practical Checklist for Authors

Before submission:

• Have I checked the journal’s peer-review policy?
• Have I read the journal’s author guidelines carefully?
• Is the manuscript clearly within the journal’s scope?
• Are the research question and contribution stated clearly?
• Is the methodology explained sufficiently for expert evaluation?
• Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials complete?
• Are all citations authentic and accurately represented?
• Have conflicts of interest and required declarations been handled correctly?
• If reviewer suggestions are requested, are my suggestions genuinely independent?
• Have I avoided suggesting inappropriate collaborators or conflicted individuals?
• Is the academic language sufficiently clear?
• Have I checked journal-specific formatting requirements?
• Am I prepared to respond systematically to two or more reviewer reports?
• Do I understand that reviewers advise while the editor makes the decision?
• Have I avoided assuming that reviewer numbers predict acceptance?

How Contentxprtz Can Support Researchers During Peer Review

Peer review often exposes problems that are not necessarily flaws in the underlying research. Sometimes the scientific idea is sound, but the manuscript does not communicate the rationale, methodology, limitations, or interpretation clearly enough for reviewers.

Contentxprtz provides academic communication and publication-support services designed to help researchers strengthen presentation while preserving the author’s intellectual ownership and responsibility.

Depending on the manuscript and stage of publication, support may include:

• Academic language editing
• Research-paper editing
• Clarity and structural review
• Consistency checking
• Journal-specific formatting
• Proofreading
• Reviewer-response editing
• Revision-letter clarity
• Alignment checks between reviewer comments and manuscript changes

Researchers preparing an initial submission may explore academic editing support, while authors revising a journal article can use research paper services where relevant.

Professional editing should improve communication rather than manufacture research findings, citations, data, or arguments. Researchers remain responsible for their methodology, evidence, interpretation, references, declarations, and final submission.

Summary: What Is the Typical Number of Reviewers Assigned by Editors?

For authors asking what is the typical number of reviewers assigned by editors for reviewing a manuscript submitted to their journal, the most practical answer is:

Two reviewers is very common, while two to three reviewers is a realistic general expectation for many externally peer-reviewed research manuscripts.

Major publishing guidance illustrates this variation. Wiley advises editors to secure at least two reviewers. IEEE requires at least two qualified reviewers before acceptance. Nature says manuscripts sent for formal review typically go to two or three reviewers, with more used when specialist advice is needed.

However, the exact number depends on:

• Journal policy
• Discipline
• Manuscript type
• Complexity
• Reviewer availability
• Specialist expertise
• Whether initial reviews agree
• Editorial judgment

Authors should also remember that the number invited can be much greater than the number who eventually submit reports.

Most importantly, reviewer recommendations inform the decision; they do not mechanically determine it. The handling editor considers the reports and the journal’s standards before deciding whether to reject, request revision, or accept the manuscript.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the typical number of reviewers assigned by editors for reviewing a manuscript submitted to their journal?

Two reviewers is one of the most common arrangements, while many manuscripts may be assessed by two to three external reviewers. The exact number depends on the journal’s policy and the nature of the manuscript.

Nature states that manuscripts selected for formal review are typically sent to two or three reviewers. Wiley advises editors to secure at least two reviewers per manuscript, while IEEE requires at least two qualified reviewers before acceptance.

These examples should not be treated as a universal rule. Some journals or article types may operate differently, and additional reviewers can be invited when specialist expertise or another assessment is needed.

Always check the specific journal’s peer-review policy if you need an exact answer.

2. Why do journals usually ask more than one person to review a manuscript?

Multiple reviewers provide independent scholarly perspectives.

Research evaluation frequently involves expert judgment. One reviewer may identify methodological concerns that another does not, while a second reviewer may contribute deeper expertise in theory, interpretation, application, or statistical analysis.

The editor can compare the reports and determine which concerns are most significant.

Using more than one reviewer does not eliminate disagreement or subjectivity, but it gives the editor a broader evidence base for evaluating the manuscript.

The reviewers’ role is advisory. The editor normally makes the publication decision after considering the reports and other relevant editorial factors.

3. How many reviewers may be invited if the journal needs two reviews?

Potentially more than two.

If an editor needs two completed reports, the editor may have to invite several experts because some invitees will decline, fail to respond, identify conflicts of interest, or be unavailable within the requested timeframe.

For example, five invitations could ultimately produce only two accepted review assignments.

Therefore, authors should distinguish:

Reviewer invited: an invitation was issued.

Reviewer assigned: a researcher may have agreed to review.

Review completed: the reviewer submitted a report.

Submission systems use these labels differently, so consult the journal if you need clarification about a particular status.

4. Is three reviewers unusual for a journal manuscript?

No. Three reviewers can be entirely normal.

Nature, for example, describes formal review as typically involving two or three reviewers. Additional expertise can also be sought when a manuscript contains specialized statistical or technical elements.

A third reviewer might be appropriate because:

• The manuscript is interdisciplinary.
• The first two reviewers have different areas of expertise.
• The existing reports disagree.
• A specialist methodological issue needs assessment.
• The journal commonly obtains three reports.

Authors should therefore not interpret a third reviewer as a negative signal.

5. What happens if two reviewers give opposite recommendations?

The editor evaluates why they disagree.

One reviewer might recommend acceptance while another recommends rejection. The editor may decide that one review is better supported, determine that the disputed issue can be addressed through revision, seek clarification, or obtain another expert opinion.

A third reviewer is possible but not compulsory.

Peer review should not be thought of as majority voting. The importance of a comment depends on its scholarly substance, not simply on how many reviewers selected a particular recommendation.

The editor ultimately considers the reports together with editorial criteria and relevant expertise.

6. Can an editor reject my manuscript even if both reviewers recommend acceptance?

Potentially, yes. Reviewer recommendations normally advise rather than bind the editor.

The editor may identify issues not emphasized by the reviewers or determine that the manuscript does not sufficiently meet the journal’s editorial criteria.

Likewise, an editor may sometimes offer a revision opportunity despite a negative reviewer recommendation if the concerns appear addressable.

The most important communication is therefore the editorial decision letter, not simply the recommendation labels appearing in individual reports.

Reviewers contribute expert assessment; the editor is responsible for interpreting that assessment within the journal’s editorial framework.

7. Does being assigned more reviewers increase my chance of rejection?

No reliable conclusion can be drawn from reviewer number alone.

More reviewers may simply indicate that:

• The journal normally uses several reviewers.
• Your research spans several specialisms.
• Statistical advice is needed.
• One reviewer could not assess every component.
• Existing reports raised a question requiring another expert opinion.

Similarly, two reviewers do not imply that acceptance is more likely.

The quality of the manuscript, significance of reviewer concerns, journal standards, and editorial judgment matter far more than the numerical reviewer count.

8. Can authors choose their own reviewers?

Usually not in the sense of making the final selection.

Some journals allow or request reviewer suggestions, but the editor decides whether any suggested researchers are invited.

Authors should recommend independent scholars with appropriate subject expertise and should disclose or avoid relevant conflicts of interest.

Do not suggest individuals simply because you expect them to provide a favorable assessment. Reviewer manipulation can raise serious publication-ethics concerns.

When the submission system asks for suggestions or exclusions, follow the journal’s instructions exactly and provide accurate professional information.

9. Why is my manuscript still under review after reviewers were assigned?

Reviewer assignment does not mean reports will arrive immediately.

A reviewer needs time to read the manuscript, evaluate the methods and evidence, prepare comments, and submit a recommendation. Reviewers can also withdraw or miss deadlines, requiring the editor to invite replacements.

In addition, the editor may wait for multiple reports before making a decision.

Peer-review timelines vary considerably between journals, so the most useful reference is the journal’s stated processing time rather than a universal benchmark. Wiley similarly notes that review times differ among journals.

If your manuscript has exceeded the journal’s expected timeframe substantially, a courteous status enquiry may be appropriate.

10. When should I consider academic editing support before or after peer review?

Professional editing may be useful when the research itself is yours but the manuscript’s clarity, organization, academic language, or response to reviewers needs improvement.

Before submission, editing can help identify unclear argumentation, inconsistent terminology, awkward language, and presentation problems that could distract reviewers.

After peer review, editing can help ensure that revisions and point-by-point responses communicate your decisions accurately and professionally.

Authors should remain responsible for all substantive research elements, including data, methodology, findings, interpretation, citations, and final submission.

Researchers who need this type of support can consider Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service, particularly when preparing a manuscript or revised submission for journal evaluation.

About the Author

Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.

Conclusion

For most researchers wondering how many people will assess their paper, two reviewers is a common benchmark, and two to three reviewers is a practical general expectation across many scholarly journals.

There is, however, no single reviewer number that applies to every submission.

A journal may use more reviewers when the manuscript is interdisciplinary, technically complex, statistically demanding, or subject to conflicting initial reports. An editor may also invite considerably more researchers than the number who ultimately submit reviews because potential reviewers can decline or remain unavailable.

Authors should therefore avoid reading too much into reviewer counts or submission-system status changes.

Instead, focus on what can be controlled:

• Submit a manuscript that clearly communicates the research question and contribution.
• Follow the target journal’s author guidelines.
• Report the methodology transparently.
• Use accurate and traceable references.
• Suggest reviewers ethically when requested.
• Read decision letters carefully.
• Respond systematically to every substantive reviewer comment.
• Maintain professional communication with editors.
• Check the specific journal’s peer-review policy rather than relying on assumptions.

When reviewer comments reveal problems of clarity, language, structure, or presentation, careful self-revision may be sufficient. Where additional editorial support would help, qualified academic editing can strengthen communication while preserving the researcher’s intellectual contribution and responsibility.

Above all, remember that peer review is not simply a numerical vote by two or three anonymous people. It is an editorial evaluation process in which expert reviewers provide advice and the editor determines the appropriate next step.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”