We have all seen the reviewer 2 memes.

Have you ever wondered if someone who just got their manuscript review back is calling your review the “reviewer 2?

While they can’t see your embarrassment, it’s embarrassing right?

In this post we’re going to talk about what makes up a great peer-review and how you can provide constructive and actionable feedback to authors on their manuscripts. That way, you don’t end up being reviewer 2, and instead the authors appreciate your feedback and make their manuscript suberb!

How to be a Good Peer-Reviewer

Read the paper as if you’re trying to find something useful for your own research

Read the manuscript from the lens of someone who might reference the results of this paper in the future for their own work. Let’s face it, that’s why we read papers! To learn something new that can help us. When you’re reviewing, even if the topic is boring or such, it could be helpful to someone else! So while you’re reading consider these objective points so your review isn’t biased by your personal opinions on the topic.

Consider these points:

• The innovation: What is new or the advancement of science or technology?
• The purpose: Why is this work being done?
• The impact: What impact will this paper have on it’s respective field?

Consider these questions and determine if the paper offers a high level of innovation, purpose, and impact. Then make an assessment on the paper

Think about how you respond to feedback

Remember there is another person and team behind the paper you’re reading. After you write your comment, think, “Would I be offended if this were said to me about my work?” Is someone going to be mad reading this comment? Making them feel discouraged and down? No, I don’t think anyone would be ok with reading comments that make them feel that way. That being said let’s talk about what makes up good review comments.

Writing a Peer Review

Ahh the anatomy of the peer review. While many journal referees portals have forms and questionnaires, most offer a section for uploading a document. This is what we are focusing on now. This is the document that the authors value and determines if the manuscript is accepted.

• Start with an overview of the paper

In this first section of the review, briefly summarize the paper. Define its purpose, innovation, and impact.

• Offer positive feedback

Before you get into constructive comments, highlight the good things that were done in the paper. By pointing out the positive feedback you’re not only focusing on the things that were “wrong.”

• Introduce improvements/comments in a numbered list

Numbering this list makes it easier for the author to organize their revision and response letter! Begin by pointing out the comments and improvements.

• Conclude with a statement on your evaluation of the paper

End the document by thanking the authors for their submission and then state what your recommendation is. Use the language provided by the journal (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject, or suited for another journal) For example, “The reviewer thanks the authors for their submission to Analytical Chemistry and it is my recommendation that the manuscript be accepted to the journal.” Even though there will likely be a check-box on the review portal, make sure to clearly state your recommendation in the document as well.

Writing a constructive peer review

Use language that encourages the authors to improve

Don’t use demanding or aggressive language. When giving a comment offer, how this improvement will improve the paper quality! That’s what the peer review is for, so justify why you are making the comment and explain how it will make the work better.

Make sure each comment is actionable

If the comment is not actionable, it’s likely your opinion. Each comment you make should have some kind of outcome and action on the author’s part. That way, they aren’t reading comments that are simply an attack on their work.

Be clear and specific

In your comments, reference the text by including figure numbers, columns, lines, and page numbers. When they read the comment, they should know exactly what they need to do. So skip on the vagueness. The only time it’s acceptable to be a little vague is if you want to comment on extensive grammar and language styling, especially if the language it was written in is not their first language. Your role right now isn’t to be a proofreader, so mentioning generally to correct language style and grammar is ok.

Things to consider when reviewing a manuscript

• Does the introduction describe background, purpose, innovation, impact, and technical hurdles being overcome 
• Are figures descriptive and referenced in the text?
• Are the methods are valid and reasonable?
• Does the data support claims? 
• Is there a thorough analysis of claims and data?
• Are there gaps in the data?

Do you feel ready to write your next peer review?

Now that you’ve gone through this post, do you feel like you can write an amazing peer-review that the authors will appreciate? Let us know in the comments!