Peer Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Reviewers

1. Responding to a Review Invitation

Upon receiving an invitation to review, you'll usually be sent the paper's abstract. This helps you decide whether you have the expertise and availability to conduct the review. Kindly respond promptly to avoid delays in the publication process. If you foresee any conflict of interest, it is best to disclose it early and respectfully decline the task if necessary.

2. Understanding the Review Format

Journals may adopt either informal or formal review formats:

Informal Reviews typically request your general assessment. Reviewing previous examples from the journal can help shape your own style as you gain experience.

Formal Reviews may require you to answer specific questions or use scorecards. Familiarizing yourself with the journal’s guidelines before agreeing to review is essential.

Regardless of format, you are usually expected to write:

Comments addressed to the authors

Confidential remarks (if necessary) for the editor

3. The First Read-Through

Start with a skim-read to form your initial impression. Keep a pen handy and reflect on:

What research question is being asked?

Is the topic original and relevant?

Are the conclusions justified by the evidence?

Do the visuals (tables, figures) aid understanding?

Flagging Major Flaws

You may identify serious issues early. Common examples include:

Contradictions between evidence and conclusions

Use of unreliable methods

Poor experimental design

Insufficient or non-significant data

Document your observations clearly and with respect, citing supporting evidence where appropriate.

4. Drafting Initial Comments

After your first read, write two short paragraphs:

Paragraph 1: Summarize the research question and goals.

Paragraph 2: Reflect on the overall contribution and relevance.

These early notes will help guide your final review and recommendation.

5. Proceeding to a Second, In-Depth Review

If the manuscript shows promise, move to a more detailed read. Aim to complete this within an hour. Prepare by:

Taking structured notes

Grouping similar feedback

Keeping figures and tables accessible

Marking line numbers for reference

Assessing Structure and Clarity

During this reading, consider:

Are the arguments clear and logical?

Does the abstract summarize the paper accurately?

Are the title and keywords appropriate?

Are there ambiguous, incorrect, or weakly supported statements?

6. Section-by-Section Assessment

Introduction

Does it establish the rationale, novelty, and aim of the study?

Are claims backed by recent literature?

Methods

Are the methods replicable, detailed, and robust?

Are standard guidelines and ethics observed?

Results and Discussion

Are findings presented clearly?

Are interpretations supported by data?

Is the broader significance discussed?

Conclusion

Do conclusions align with the stated aims and results?

Are they evidence-based?

Figures, Tables, and Data

Do visuals enhance clarity?

Are any manipulations clearly disclosed?

Is the data sufficient and plausible?

References

Check for:

Accuracy and formatting

Adequacy (supporting arguments well)

Balance (diverse, recent, and not overly self-referential)

7. Ethical Considerations and Plagiarism

If you suspect plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or ethical breaches:

Do not accuse the author directly

Instead, inform the editor confidentially with a respectful explanation

Use COPE’s reviewer guidelines for reference

8. SEO and Discoverability

Reflect on the title, abstract, and keywords:

Do they reflect the core of the research?

Are they likely to appear in relevant searches?

A clear and focused abstract can significantly influence a paper’s visibility and readership.

9. Writing Your Review Report

Follow the journal's template if provided. Otherwise, structure your review into:

Summary: Brief overview and context

Major Issues: Methodological flaws, unsupported claims, or lack of originality

Minor Issues: Ambiguities, referencing errors, or minor clarifications

Style and Tone

Begin with positive remarks

Maintain a respectful and constructive tone

Be clear and objective

Use plain English and avoid jargon

10. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Use this section for:

Ethical concerns

Suspicions of misconduct

Recommending rejection without elaborating to the author

Avoid saying anything here that you wouldn’t want the author to potentially know.

11. Your Recommendation

You will typically be asked to select a recommendation such as:

Accept

Minor Revision

Major Revision

Reject

If Accepting:

State why the paper meets standards and note minor improvements if any.

If Suggesting Revision:

Clearly list suggested changes. Indicate whether you are willing to re-review.

If Recommending Rejection:

Be kind yet honest. Provide constructive feedback the authors can use in future work. Avoid disparaging remarks and focus on the research, not the researcher.

This revised version promotes a humble, helpful, and ethical approach to peer review, acknowledging the reviewer’s important role in supporting research quality while maintaining respect for fellow scholars. Let me know if you’d like this formatted into a handout, checklist, or slide presentation.