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.