How to write a paper review

Peer review is the foundation upon which academic scholarship rests. Our work, once published, has undergone scrutiny from independent experts, adjudicated by an independent editor. This process of independent scrutiny is what gives scholars confidence in academic published work.

Typically, any paper published in a rigorous peer-reviewed academic journal has undergone review by two or more independent experts. Journal editors expend a huge amount of time and energy trying to find reviewers – an increasingly onerous task, as many people, overloaded with work and under immense pressure to teach, produce grants, lead projects, write papers and do all the other work that academics do, cannot spare time to eat lunch, let alone take on the task of reviewing a paper. However, without this, academic publishing comes crashing down. It’s an important part of professional service. At the very least, you should aim to review twice as many papers per year as you submit.

As an editor, I find that early career scholars, invested in developing their career and less overloaded with administrative and leadership tasks, are often more amenable to undertake the task of peer review. However, I have also received, or handled, cases of peer review by more established scholars that frankly, could be better. So, here are some of my top tips for undertaking the most professional, constructive and helpful peer review.

I also provide some suggestions for efficiency in the peer review process.

Accepting the review

Established academics will receive a lot of requests for review, and certainly cannot undertake all of them. If you cannot undertake the review, please decline the invitation as soon as possible. This allows the editor to move on and ask someone else (often, ten or more people will be asked before two accept the invitation). A rapid accept or decline helps efficiency.

Only accept the invitation if you have time and capacity to undertake the work, an interest in the topic, expertise in the topic, and have no conflicts of interest. These could be close collaborations, being in the same institution, personal conflicts or rivalries, or other conflicts. If you’re unsure, always ask the editor.

If you’re going to be late with the review, then you can always request more time from the editor. This is rarely an issue, but it is helpful to know that a review is inbound.

Summarise the paper succinctly

Reviews will commonly start by summarising the key arguments in the paper in their review, to demonstrate that they have read and understood the paper. If you do this, keep it to a paragraph or two.

Summarise here the originality and significance of the manuscript, especially in relation to the discipline as a whole.

Understand the scope

Make sure that you are familiar with the journal’s scope and guidelines, to determine if the paper is a good fit. Understand the expected structure, purpose and length of the article.

Highlight strengths

Highlight in your review the strengths of the paper. It is easy to be overly critical. Highlight to the editor if the results are interesting, noteworthy, worthy of publication. If you do not highlight the strengths, the editor may have the impression that the paper has no redeeming features and reject it.

Remember that the author has put in a significant amount of work into this paper. Acknowledge this effort, and start your review with a positive comment on this.

Assess weaknesses

Once you have highlighted the strengths of the paper, you can systematically assess or highlight any weaknesses, preferably with constructive comments on how these could be addressed.

Evaluate key aspects

Evaluate key aspects of the manuscript:

Clarity and structure: is the paper well written, with a clear introduction, and a logical and coherent structure.

Methods: Are the methods appropriate and rigorous? Are they applied correctly?

Data analysis: Is the data analysis and statistical work appropriate? Are there any errors?

Evidence and argument: Is the argument supported by the evidence provided? Is the discussion vague or specific?

Tone and purpose: Is this consistent throughout the manuscript?

Grammar and language: Note any errors, but focus on higher level issues first.

Be concise

Your task in peer review is to help the author publish the best, most rigorous, version of the paper possible. However, you do not need to provide extremely detailed comments, which is very time consuming. Summarise the key points of the review, including areas for revision or where the argument is unclear, concisely. This makes for a more efficient review process.

Your job is not to try and rewrite the paper; if the paper is not written in the way you would write it, but the data still stands, then that is fine. Likewise, figures should be clear and understandable; if they are not designed the way you would, but are still clear, then they are fine.

It is fine to provide copy editing suggestions, but it is not strictly speaking the job of the reviewer; this is an editorial responsibility. If the language or grammar need revising, you can flag that to the editor in your review. This work is very time consuming, and we’re all busy people.

Reviewing can be very onerous, especially if the reviewer goes to a lot of effort and provides very detailed comments. This is a very helpful and considerate action, but bear in mind that your time is limited, and this effort is really beyond the scope required for a high quality peer review.

Be constructive

Your task is to support the author (and the editor) in publishing their best possible paper. Make helpful, constructive comments that can help this process. You are seeking to help the author. Use clear, professional language.

Remember that at the other end of the review is a real, living, human person. Your review should be helpful and constructive. Unkind, personal comments have no place in professional peer review and should be avoided. We want academia to be an enjoyable place for all to work. Overly critical comments can be crushing – especially to early career researchers, who may be writing their first paper. Be the change you want to see in the working professional environment.

Always be respectful, professional, and objective, remembering that your review has two audiences: the author, and the editor. All comments should be grounded in what is in the manuscript, avoiding reference to personal views, and justified where possible.

Major / minor comments

Reviews are often organised into major and minor comments, with the major comments summarising the key points above. Any major concerns should be identified and all should be well justified.

Minor comments may be provided line by line, with suggestions to improve clarity or flow. Use numbered lines here to help the author. These minor comments should be easy to be corrected if the manuscript merits eventual publication.

Conclude with a recommendation

It is the editor’s job to decide what to do with the manuscript – whether to accept with minor or major revisions, reject, transfer to another journal, and so on. However, you can give clear guidance here on whether you think the paper is appropriate for the journal, whether it is sound methodologically, whether the argument is supported by the evidence, and so on. Summarise the key points of your review.

Remember that accepting the manuscript is not a reviewers job; the judgement is editorial.

Signing the review

Some journals have a policy on whether reviews should be anonymous or sign their reviews. Others leave it optional for the reviewer. Stuart Lane’s editorial has an extensive discussion of this.