It goes without saying that reviewers are central to the peer review process. Thoughtful and thorough evaluations of submitted manuscripts can be the difference between increasing a journal’s impact factor and having to retract poorly researched or flawed articles. So, what steps can you follow to make sure your review is helpful and constructive?
- Read the journal guidelines. Many journals, publishers, and societies have guidelines available online that outline what editors are looking for in reviews. If you are unfamiliar with the journal, it may also help to read the author guidelines so you know what the editors and journal staff expect from a submission in order for it to be published.
- Be respectful of deadlines. If you are invited to review and know you will be unable to provide a substantive review during the allotted time frame, either decline or email the editorial office to see if an extension is possible. If you do have to decline to review, it is immensely helpful to editors and journal staff if you suggest alternative reviewers. This can be a great opportunity to recommend early career scholars in the field who are looking for valuable experience as a peer reviewer.
- Be professional. Do not use offensive, inflammatory, or derogatory language. If the manuscript is written by authors from a non-English speaking country and the language needs improvement, convey that in a courteous way. Try to provide a constructive review even if the paper is seriously flawed. Even if you are recommending that a paper be rejected, you should still offer ways that it can be improved and/or suggest a journal that might be a better fit for the article.
- Focus on substance over style. Don’t focus your review on formatting issues such as figure/table placement, spacing, etc. For many journals, manuscripts will be completely reformatted after acceptance before final publication, and the production team will resolve any formatting problems. Additionally, do not worry about pointing out minor, non-scientific typos or copyediting issues; those can be corrected after acceptance as well. Instead, focus on the content and the scientific merit of the work.
- Disclose any potential conflict of interest you may have. Especially in niche areas of research, you may be asked to review a manuscript for which you have a personal relationship with the authors. If this occurs, you should email the editor to disclose this information and decline to review if you believe you cannot deliver a fair review. Peer review is most successful when bias is removed, and it is helpful for editors and staff to have this information.
Reviewers are the engine driving the peer review machine, and high-quality, thoughtful, and constructive reviews allow editors and staff to advance their field and ensure that their journal is successful. These steps will help you become a part of that success.
Do you have experience as a peer reviewer? We’d love to hear about it in the comments below!
