While I have heard the term multiple times and I think it means approval from other scientists, I am not very sure about it.
Yes random scientists from your field do a review and an editor consolidates that into an accept/deny result with potential requirements for revision. But this often can take weeks to months since nobody actually wants to do these reviews and it’s really dependent on who you’ll get as reviewers. So the usual approach is to reapply several times over months if you think your submission is good.
Reapplying repeatedly is probably why no one wants to do those reviews though. Spam is annoying
Are you peer reviewing the process of peer review?
Resubmitting to multiple journals is not a typical (nor the "right" one however it is interpreted) strategy though (at least not in physical sciences). You'll usually ping the handling editor, who will then contact the referee on your behalf. The referee will then either "promise a report soon", or, in the event they didn't reply, the editor will find another referee. Nowadays with arxiv and such, there is usually no rush to actual publication as far as priority is concerned.
I'd also say, don't take the combative mindset as suggested in the comic. Think of it more as having some fresh pairs of eyes to check your work as well as communication (if a referee misunderstood something in your paper, chances are many readers will as well).
That's what the process should be.
In reality, especially in social sciences, it comes down to whether the "peer reviewers" agree with your point of view. Even if your point of view is bullshit and not backed up by science.
This image is missing the thousands of dollars in fees shakedown at the end.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
