Need proof that a paper went through real scrutiny? This guide gives you a clear path from the article in hand to the journal behind it. You’ll use quick visual cues, policy pages, and trusted directories to rule in—or rule out—peer review. No paywalled tools are required, though a campus login can speed things up.
Quick ways to check if a source is peer-reviewed
| Where to look | What to spot | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|
| PDF front or back page | Lines like “Received,” “Revised,” “Accepted” | Manuscript went through editorial decision points |
| Article landing page | Labels such as “Research Article,” “Review,” “Editorial” | Only research and reviews are usually refereed |
| Journal “About” or “Peer review” page | Named policy that explains reviewer anonymity and steps | Journal states its process in public |
| Instructions for authors | Submission steps that include external review | Authors are told to prepare for review |
| Editorial board page | Active scholars with institutional emails | Real oversight exists |
| Journal site footer | Publisher name and contact address | Traceable organization |
| Indexing claims on journal site | Links to DOAJ, PubMed, or Web of Science | You can verify visibility claims |
| Directory listings | A record in DOAJ or library tools | Independent inclusion signals screening |
| Ulrichsweb (via library) | “Refereed” badge on the journal record | Third-party tag for peer-reviewed serials |
| Submission timelines | Weeks or months between received and accepted | Non-instant decisions |
| Open peer review badges | Links to reviewer reports or decision letters | Evidence you can read |
| Article history box | Dates and version labels | A trail of changes |
How to find out if a source is peer reviewed online
Start with the article itself
Open the PDF or HTML page. Scan the first and last page for an “Article history” box or a sequence that reads “Received,” “Revised,” and “Accepted.” Many journals print these stamps right under the abstract or at the footer. If the timeline looks sane—weeks or months between dates—you’re on the right track.
Jump to the journal’s home page
Click the journal title near the article header. On the journal site, find a link named “Peer review,” “Editorial policy,” or “Instructions for authors.” A clear policy page should say who reviews, whether reviews are single-blind, double-blind, or open, and what steps sit between submission and acceptance.
Verify claims with a neutral source
Cross-check the journal in a trusted directory. The Directory of Open Access Journals lists open-access titles that meet quality screening, including peer review. You can also use your library’s catalog filters that tag journals or articles as peer-reviewed. If your campus gives you access to Ulrichsweb, look for the black-and-white “referee” shirt on the journal record.
Look for reviewer transparency
Some publishers post decision letters and reviewer notes beside the paper. Others add a small badge that links to reports. When those files are present, you can confirm peer review without any guesswork.
Check the editorial board
Scan the names and affiliations. A healthy board lists active scholars with real profiles and institutional email addresses. A single person listed as “editorial office” with no contact trail is a red flag.
Confirm the publisher’s ethics stance
Reputable publishers align with community standards for review. See the COPE guidelines for peer reviewers to understand the baseline. A journal that links to COPE policies or mirrors those practices earns trust.
Use the Think. Check. Submit. checklist
The global campaign at Think. Check. Submit. gives a short, practical checklist that helps you judge the journal’s fitness. Work through it and you’ll spot weak signals fast.
Not every item in a peer-reviewed journal is reviewed
A journal can be peer-reviewed while still hosting content types that aren’t. Typical non-refereed items include editorials, letters, news, book reviews, corrections, and calls for papers. Article pages usually display a type label in the header. Treat those as commentary, not vetted research.
Special issues and supplements
Guest-edited issues should apply the same scrutiny as regular issues. DOAJ reminds editors that special issues need external review and clear labelling for each paper. When a special issue page lacks that clarity, track the policy link for a statement. If none is posted, weigh your confidence with care.
Conference papers and preprints
Conference proceedings use program-committee review, which can vary. Many fields now post preprints before journal review. A preprint record isn’t the same as a peer-reviewed article, unless the platform shows attached reviews or the journal version later replaces it.
Red flags and confidence boosters
Signals that erode confidence
- Zero detail on who reviews or how many reviewers take part
- Promises of acceptance within days
- Editorial board with fake photos or dead links
- Indexing logos that don’t click through to real records
- Solicitations that push quick payment before any checks
Signals that raise confidence
- Clear policy pages that match COPE norms
- Visible article histories with distinct dates
- Reviewer reports or decision letters attached
- Traceable publisher address and working contacts
- Listing in vetted directories like DOAJ
Practical walk-through: one paper, five checks
1) Article header
Record the article type and the history dates. Screenshot the header if you’ll need proof later.
2) Policy page
Open the journal site and save the peer review policy link. Note whether it’s single-blind, double-blind, or open.
3) Directory record
Search for the journal title in DOAJ. Copy the listing URL if found. If you have library access, add the Ulrichsweb record to your notes.
4) Editorial board
Check that at least a few editors have current profiles at real institutions. One quick click per name is enough.
5) Article files
Look for “Peer review reports,” “Decision letter,” or “Response to reviewers.” If present, save them alongside the PDF.
When indexing and peer review don’t match
Indexing in search engines or databases doesn’t prove peer review by itself. Some databases mix preprints, data sets, and journal articles. Treat indexing as a visibility marker, not a stamp of review. Always pair an index check with a policy page and the article’s own history box.
Grading sources for class work
Many rubrics ask you to justify why a source counts as peer-reviewed. Build a short note right in your citation manager: paste the policy URL, jot the article-history dates, and add a line on the review model. That saves time when you write methods or annotate a bibliography.
Peer review models and what you may see
Peer review isn’t a single method. Policies differ by field and publisher. The table below maps common models to the clues you’ll see on a paper or journal site.
| Model | What you may see | Where it appears |
|---|---|---|
| Double-blind | No author or reviewer names shared during review | Policy page; author guidelines |
| Single-blind | Reviewers hidden; authors visible to reviewers | Policy page |
| Open review | Reviewer names and reports posted | Article page; linked files |
| Transparent review | Anonymous reports published with DOI | Article page; supplements |
| Registered Reports | Stage-1 acceptance before data collection | Article title; decision letter |
| Post-publication | Community comments or formal reviews after release | Platform notes; badges |
One-minute checklist you can save
- Article shows “Received” and “Accepted” with sensible spacing
- Journal policy page describes who reviews and the steps
- Directory listing found in DOAJ or a library tool
- Editors are real and contactable
- Any reviewer reports attached are saved with your notes
Follow this sequence and you’ll move from doubt to confidence without guesswork or fluff. When a journal is honest about its process, the evidence stands in plain view.