How to draft a journal peer review report: easy steps to get you started
When you receive an invitation to peer review an article, what’s your first response? “Not AGAIN!” or “how can I ever do this?” If it’s the latter, you’re not alone. Plenty of researchers, especially early career scientists, are flattered to receive a request to peer review but are unsure about how to actually write such a report even if they’ve been reviewing papers for their supervisors as masters or doctoral students. But it’s important to take the plunge and become an active and publicly known peer reviewer, because it helps you build cordial relations with editors at key journals in your field and enhance your reputation in the scientific community. So we’ve put together this handy guide to writing a review for a journal article, to help you craft the kind of review that is most useful to journals as well as other researchers in your field.
Step 1: Don’t Accept All Papers to Peer Review!
When you receive a request to peer review a paper, take time to read its abstract and decide whether the study is really within your area of expertise and if you’re in a position to offer useful insights and criticisms of the work. Remember that journal editors are relying on you to weed out papers that don’t make a useful contribution to existing knowledge or those with serious methodological and analytical flaws. So superficial, perfunctory peer review comments could result in the journal publishing subpar research and lowering its standing.
Pro tip: Also take time to verify whether you’ve any obvious conflicts of interest, such as being at the same institute as the authors. Informing the journal about these upfront will strengthen your image as an ethical and credible researcher.
Step 2: Request Peer Review Guidance
If this is your first invitation to peer review from a particular journal, don’t hesitate to ask them for samples of peer review reports or any templates or checklists they would like you to follow. Journals like PLOS ONE have put in considerable effort into creating comprehensive guidelines for their peer reviewers. By sticking to these guidelines or templates, you’ll not only create a more comprehensive and effective peer review report, but you’ll also make it easier for the handling editor to process the paper and even the authors to implement your feedback.
Step 3: Note Down Overall Strengths and Weaknesses
In your first read through of the paper, note down any overall strengths or weaknesses you spot. In particular, ask yourself the following questions:
- Can I quickly see what gap in the literature this paper is trying to fill?
- Do I have a clear idea of the way the study was conducted?
- Do I have a clear idea of the kind of results/data obtained?
- Are the theoretical or practical implications of the findings clear?
Step 5: Review Sections in Detail
At this age, you’ll be doing a more thorough, line-by-line critique of the paper. You’ll focus more on the nitty-gritty details, checking whether the author(s) have provided sufficient information to replicate the study, whether the author(s) have referenced existing literature adequately, whether the results are presented clearly and logically, etc. Here’s what you need to know about this stage:
- Flag poor language and formatting if it seriously affects the clarity of the paper and makes it difficult for you to figure out what was done or what results were obtained.
- Pay attention to figures and tables (remember that the notorious paper with the AI-generated image of a well-endowed rat was actually peer reviewed).
- Refer to checklists like CONSORT to make sure that you are checking for all important aspects of the study.
- Scrutinize the methods and results sections closely with a focus on generalizability and reproducibility. If you’re left with the impression that it will be difficult to replicate the results or that the results won’t apply to the larger population, ask yourself why.
- Many journals have opted for AI-powered tools like Paperpal Preflight to catch ethics issues like missing declarations at the submission stage itself. However, it’s good to recheck that the paper and study you’re reviewing meets the required ethical standards.
- Give 1-2 examples to support your criticisms, and suggest concrete steps that the authors can take to remedy any defects.
Example:
Avoid: “Terminology is inconsistent and confusing.”
Better: Terms like “marker” and “indicator” have been used interchangeably. Please make sure terminology is consistent.
Avoid: The methods section is unclear.
Better: The methods should be described in more detail. For example, specify how was the corticosteroid administered and clarify whether patients who received consolidation chemotherapy were included or excluded in the comparison analyses.
Step 6: Common Dos and Don’ts to be an Ethical Peer Reviewer
Peer review has been described as the cornerstone of scientific publishing because of the vital role it plays in ensuring the quality and integrity of published research. That’s why acting ethically as a peer reviewer is very important, not just for your career but for the wider scientific community. We’ve listed below some common dos and don’ts for peer reviewers:
Do:
Carefully scrutinize requests for peer review to make sure you’re accepting only those papers for which you have domain knowledge and can confidently evaluate the research
Decline peer review requests in a timely manner, and suggest alternative reviewers if possible
Maintain a professional and supportive tone in your comments
Avoid vague language, and give examples or provide evidence to justify your comments
Clearly differentiate between crucial and optional revisions to the paper
If allowed by the journal, opt to have your peer review comments published alongside the article
Submit the peer review report as per the journal’s timeframe, or communicate any potential delays well in advance
Don’t:
Use derogatory language or make decisions based on what you know or can guess of the authors’ race, nationality, gender, etc.
Breach confidentiality or share the paper with unauthorized persons
Use ideas or information from the paper in your own work
Request citations to your own papers
Require the authors to perform additional research outside the scope of the study
FAQs About Being a Journal Peer Reviewer
- Should I accept peer review requests from new/non-established journals?
Just because a journal is new, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s predatory or “shady” in any way. For example, in 2024, Earth Stewardship was launched; it is an official journal of the Ecological Society of America and is published by Wiley. When you receive a peer review request from a journal you’re not familiar with, research the journal to see if it’s legitimate. For example, the editorial board should consist of genuine and reputed researchers in the field, and these researchers should mention serving on this journal’s editorial board in their own social media or institutional profiles.
- Can I earn money from being a peer reviewer?
Peer review at most mainstream journals is typically an unpaid job. Your “reward” as a peer reviewer often consists of the prestige of being associated with a reputed journal and opportunities to build relationships with leading scientists in the field (i.e., the journal’s editorial board). You might also financially benefit indirectly, for example, the relationships and reputation you build help advance your own career or open you up to paid consulting opportunities or paid reviewing jobs at private companies.
- What kind of reward or recognition can I get as a peer reviewer?
Many reputed journals nowadays are looking at ways in which they can make their peer reviewers feel appreciated. Journals like the Journal of Medical Case Reports publicly acknowledge their peer reviewers. The Royal Society of Chemistry provides certificates to outstanding peer reviewers. BMJ journals offer reviewers a discount on article processing charges (APCs) for their own articles. Reviewers of certain Wiley journals in the health sciences can claim continuing medical education (CME) credits for their work. There are now cross-journal, cross-publisher efforts made to recognize and reward peer reviewers, such as Reviewer Credits and the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service.
- What are conflicting/competing interests in peer review? How do I know if I have them?
A conflict of interest or a competing interest refers to anything that could interfere with your impartiality or judgment as a peer reviewer. This could be financial, professional, or personal. Some common competing interests are
- Having worked with the authors or at the same institution
- Being affiliated to an institution that is in direct competition with one or more of the authors’ institutions
- Being financially impacted by the research (e.g., reviewing a paper on the risk of dementia and dairy consumption, when you are also consulting for a dairy products company)
- Having published a paper with any of the authors in the last 5 years
- Having held grants with any of the authors in the last 5 years
When you receive a manuscript for peer review, it’s a good idea to check the author list (if available), funding sources, and acknowledgements sections for any potential conflicts of interest.
Comments
You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!
Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.
Subscribe to Career Growth
