How to write a quality review: tips and recommendations
Category:
For reviewers
Date of publications:
21.11.2024
Views:
127
Expectations and requirements for peer review vary across subject areas and also depend on the type of paper. Here we will describe general guidelines for preparing a review report.
1. Study the journal.
Visit the journal's home page on the official website and read the aims, scope and instructions for authors to get an idea of the scope and content of the journal. This will help in determining whether a peer-reviewed article is suitable for the journal or not.
2. Read the article.
While reading the article, be sure to check all tables, figures, and supplementary data. Remember that the main factors on which you should make recommendations are: originality, presentation, and relevance of the manuscript topic to the journal's readers. Accuracy and validity of the methodology and how sound the conclusions are.
3. Write a review.
The report has two purposes: to provide the editor with information that will allow him/her to make a decision, and to give feedback to the author to help improve his/her work. It is best to start with a brief description of the work and the main conclusions as you understand them, and state your overall opinion.
Being critical while remaining sensitive to the author is not always easy. A good rule of thumb is to direct your criticism to the work done and avoid comments that could be construed as personal criticism of the author.
Here are a few things to keep in mind when writing a report:
4. Write detailed feedback.
Comments should be carefully worded so that the writer understands what actions they need to take to improve their work, rather than just pointing out what is wrong. Try to write simply and avoid rhetorical flourishes that can lead to misunderstandings. Also, avoid generalised or vague statements, and avoid negative comments that are irrelevant and not constructive. You can see examples and constructs for comments in our article "Reviewer comments: constructive and clear".
5. Leave recommendations.
After you have read the article and assessed its quality, you will need to make a general recommendation to the editor to help him/her make a decision. The specific options used by the journal may vary, but the basic recommendations are as follows:
Accept: The article is suitable for publication in its current form.
Requires minor revisions: The paper will be ready for publication after minor revisions (list what revisions you would recommend the author make).
Requires major revisions: The paper needs major revisions such as expanded data analysis, expanded literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
Reject: The paper is not suitable for publication in this journal, or the changes required are too significant to continue to consider it in its current form. It would be helpful to the editor if you could explain (in confidential comments if necessary) whether your recommendation is based on the level of relevance of the research or is due to technical deficiencies.
6. Revisions.
When authors make revisions to their paper, they are asked to attach a list of revisions and reply comments for reviewers.
The revised version may be evaluated by the editor if only minor changes have been requested, or may be returned to the original reviewers, if any. You will then be asked to confirm whether the changes made are satisfactory.
1. Study the journal.
Visit the journal's home page on the official website and read the aims, scope and instructions for authors to get an idea of the scope and content of the journal. This will help in determining whether a peer-reviewed article is suitable for the journal or not.
2. Read the article.
While reading the article, be sure to check all tables, figures, and supplementary data. Remember that the main factors on which you should make recommendations are: originality, presentation, and relevance of the manuscript topic to the journal's readers. Accuracy and validity of the methodology and how sound the conclusions are.
3. Write a review.
The report has two purposes: to provide the editor with information that will allow him/her to make a decision, and to give feedback to the author to help improve his/her work. It is best to start with a brief description of the work and the main conclusions as you understand them, and state your overall opinion.
Being critical while remaining sensitive to the author is not always easy. A good rule of thumb is to direct your criticism to the work done and avoid comments that could be construed as personal criticism of the author.
Here are a few things to keep in mind when writing a report:
- Your comments should be suitable for sending to the author. Make constructive suggestions, ask for clarification of unclear points, and ask for details. Remember that authors will welcome both positive feedback and constructive criticism;
- if the paper presents original research, comment on how appropriate the methods are and whether the work conforms to the standards accepted in the particular field;
- draw attention to aspects that you cannot evaluate fully because of lack of clarity or because it is not within your expertise;
- You should suggest how the author could improve the clarity, conciseness and quality of the presentation;
- confirm whether you think the topic of the paper is sufficiently interesting and whether the length of the paper is justified. If you recommend shortening the text, indicate specific places where you think it is appropriate to do so;
- It is not the reviewer's responsibility to edit the paper for spelling, grammar, etc., but it will be helpful if you point out specific places where the technical meaning is unclear;
- You may disagree with the author's opinion, but should allow the author to argue his or her point of view if it is supported by evidence; reviewers are not expected to identify research integrity violations in manuscripts, but your experience may allow you to spot potential problems that the editorial staff or editor has missed. If you suspect misconduct, please notify the publisher or editor as soon as possible.
4. Write detailed feedback.
Comments should be carefully worded so that the writer understands what actions they need to take to improve their work, rather than just pointing out what is wrong. Try to write simply and avoid rhetorical flourishes that can lead to misunderstandings. Also, avoid generalised or vague statements, and avoid negative comments that are irrelevant and not constructive. You can see examples and constructs for comments in our article "Reviewer comments: constructive and clear".
5. Leave recommendations.
After you have read the article and assessed its quality, you will need to make a general recommendation to the editor to help him/her make a decision. The specific options used by the journal may vary, but the basic recommendations are as follows:
Accept: The article is suitable for publication in its current form.
Requires minor revisions: The paper will be ready for publication after minor revisions (list what revisions you would recommend the author make).
Requires major revisions: The paper needs major revisions such as expanded data analysis, expanded literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
Reject: The paper is not suitable for publication in this journal, or the changes required are too significant to continue to consider it in its current form. It would be helpful to the editor if you could explain (in confidential comments if necessary) whether your recommendation is based on the level of relevance of the research or is due to technical deficiencies.
6. Revisions.
When authors make revisions to their paper, they are asked to attach a list of revisions and reply comments for reviewers.
The revised version may be evaluated by the editor if only minor changes have been requested, or may be returned to the original reviewers, if any. You will then be asked to confirm whether the changes made are satisfactory.
Share post
