The peer review process. It is the procedure that we in science rely on to get our work published. While we all have that story of the dreadful reviewer 2, it begs the question: what formal training do we receive to effectively and appropriately review other people’s work? For more junior trainees, talk to your supervisor to see if you can review a manuscript that they have been invited to review alongside them. Consider reviewing the paper independently and then going through each other’s feedback together. Finding the Goldilocks approach to providing the feedback that is “just right” can be difficult but is crucial for the advancement of science.
When initiating your review, put yourself in the shoes of the author, because you have, and will be, in their shoes. Avoid using nonconstructive, negative language and spend the appropriate time required to adequately review their work. Next, read the paper, then read it again. The first readthrough will give you an initial impression of the paper and the quality of the work. Consider questions like: “Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?” and “if the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case?” This stage will give you an idea of the science and the novelty of the work as well as any major issues with the manuscript. Once you have done an initial readthrough, consider writing a paragraph that summarizes your understanding of the work and the key messages and successful points of the article. At this point, you should be able to identify whether the article has the potential for publication or has fatal flaws. If the latter, reject and describe the shortcomings in detail and highlight the strengths of the paper to assist the authors in future submissions.
If the paper has the potential to be published, the subsequent examinations “…are critical as they focus your mind on the issues and help frame the problem clearly,” states Dr. Vineet Chopra, an associate professor at the University of Michigan. During the second read, consider the ins and outs of the article. Following this round of examination, you may have come across other potential major issues, but most likely minor concerns such as ambiguous definitions or citations, and small structural or grammatical problems. When reviewing, it is important to not forget about the tables, figures, and supplementary material as well. When writing your review, consider a format that consists of your summary paragraph, major issues, minor issues, and small grammatical/structural suggestions.
We all rely on our peers for the advancement of science, so be critical with your review and be courteous. Wiley offers a guide to assist reviewers in the different points to consider for each section of the manuscript, making it a useful tool to further help the review process.