Peer review asks for honest, timely, and constructive reports that guide editors and help authors raise the quality of a manuscript.
Editors look for reviewers who grasp the research question, spot strengths and weaknesses, and communicate with care. You do not need to be the world’s top authority. You do need sound judgment, focus, consistency, and a respect for confidentiality. This guide walks through practical steps, tools, and phrasing you can use on your next review, from the first email to the final recommendation.
Peer Review At A Glance
Before you say yes to any invitation, check three things: fit, time, and conflicts. Fit means the topic sits within your experience and you can judge methods, data, and claims. Time means you can deliver by the deadline. Conflicts include funding ties, collaborations, mentorship links, or rivalries that could skew your view. If any of those create bias, decline quickly and suggest alternatives.
| Step | What It Means | What To Do |
|---|---|---|
| Scope Fit | You understand the topic and methods well enough to judge rigour. | Scan title, abstract, and methods. Accept only if you can assess core claims. |
| Time Check | You can meet the deadline without rushing. | Block calendar time now; tell the editor early if you need a brief extension. |
| Conflicts | No relationships that could bias your view. | Disclose any ties. Recuse if bias cannot be managed. |
| Confidentiality | You will treat the manuscript as private. | Do not share files or use ideas. Store notes securely and delete later. |
| Ethics | You will give fair, respectful, and evidence-based feedback. | State what works, what needs revision, and why. |
Ethical ground rules are straightforward: keep the work confidential, declare conflicts, and judge the science rather than the authors. See the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers for a widely used reference. When you review studies with specific designs, use reporting checklists so you evaluate the right items. The EQUATOR reporting guidelines index helps you find the right checklist for trials, systematic reviews, diagnostic work, qualitative studies, and more.
Becoming A Peer Reviewer: Skills And Steps
Accept Invitations Wisely
Say yes only when you can add value. If the topic is adjacent rather than central, you can still help if the method fits your skill set. Share any conflict in your reply. If you decline, offer two to three names of suitable colleagues. That small act supports editors and raises your visibility.
Plan Your Review Like A Mini Project
Block two to four focused sessions. One pass to read, one for notes, and one to craft the report. Leave a short gap between passes. Fresh eyes reveal leaps of logic, unclear figures, and missing controls. Save page numbers and figure labels beside each note so the authors can find the spot fast.
Read In Passes
First pass: grasp the claim and the main results. Second pass: look at methods, sample size, measures, controls, and statistics. Third pass: scan figures, legends, and tables for clarity and alignment with the text. If the journal masks identities, avoid guessing the authors; focus on the content in front of you.
How To Write Feedback That Lands
Open With A Short, Neutral Summary
Start your report with two or three lines that restate the goal, approach, and main finding in your own words. This shows you understood the paper and frames your comments. Keep it neutral and factual.
Separate Major And Minor Points
Major points change the strength or clarity of the main claim. Minor points tidy the text or figures without changing the message. Label them clearly so the editor can judge weight and the authors can plan revisions.
Major Issues First
- Claim vs. evidence mismatch.
- Missing controls or validation.
- Questionable measures or statistics.
- Inconsistent results across figures or tables.
- Unclear data availability or code access.
Use Precise, Respectful Language
Point to the location, describe the issue, explain why it matters, and propose a path forward. Swap judgmental phrases for neutral ones. Write as if the authors are future collaborators you have not met yet.
Helpful Phrases You Can Adapt
- “On page 6, the sample description omits exclusion criteria; please add these so readers can judge generalisability.”
- “Figure 3 suggests a dose effect. A trend test or model with dose as a continuous predictor would clarify the pattern.”
- “The primary endpoint is defined post-hoc. Please state the pre-specified endpoint or justify the change.”
- “Raw data and code are referenced in the text but no link is provided. Please supply a repository link or explain access limits.”
Method And Reporting Checks That Save Time
Design, Power, And Measures
Look for clear inclusion rules, sample size reasoning, and validated measures. If the study uses instruments, ask for reliability indices. If there are multiple endpoints, ask which one is primary. When the design relies on randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding should be described. Where blinding is not possible, look for strategies that reduce bias another way.
Statistics And Figures
Check that the analysis matches the question and the measure scale. Confirm model assumptions. Inspect figure axes, units, and legends. Ask for confidence intervals, raw data plots where space allows, and exact p-values rather than threshold labels. Encourage clear figure panels that stand alone without long hunts in the text.
Data, Code, And Materials
Request a link to a stable repository when journal policy allows sharing. Authors can supply a minimal dataset when full sharing is restricted. If custom code drives key results, ask for a script or notebook that runs the main pipeline.
Ethics And Professional Conduct
Confidentiality
Do not share or cite the manuscript while the review is active. Do not use ideas or data gained through access to the paper. If you invite a trainee to co-review, ask the editor first and include the trainee’s name in your cover note so the journal records the contribution.
Conflicts And Bias
Disclose funding or personal ties that could sway your view. If bias cannot be managed, step aside. If you think you can give a fair, balanced report despite a weak tie, tell the editor and ask for guidance.
Misconduct Signals
Flag suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, data manipulation, image irregularities, or undisclosed reuse. Describe what you saw and where you saw it. Do not contact the authors directly about such concerns; let the editor handle the process.
AI Use
Do not paste confidential text into public tools. If you use software to check grammar or structure, remove manuscript details first. Your judgment stays yours; tools can assist with wording but should not write the review.
Make A Clear Editorial Recommendation
Editors weigh your comments along with other reports and journal scope. Your job is to offer a clear view of viability and a path to improvement. Be specific about what changes would move the work to publishable shape and how much effort that would take.
| Situation | What You Might Say | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | “The study meets the journal’s standards. Minor edits in wording and figure labelling only.” | Signal readiness with tiny, straightforward edits. |
| Minor Revision | “Core claim stands. Please expand methods, add data links, and fix clarity issues in Figures 2–3.” | Focus on polish and transparency. |
| Major Revision | “Important gaps remain: missing control group and unclear primary endpoint. With added analyses and clarifications, the work could meet the bar.” | Large but feasible changes can lift the paper. |
| Reject | “Methods cannot support the claim. Key design limits prevent a fix within a revision cycle. The data may suit a narrower venue.” | Explain the barrier and offer a constructive path. |
Speed Without Cutting Corners
Build A Reusable Template
Create a personal outline: summary, major points, minor points, methods checklist, data and code notes, figures, and a closing paragraph for the editor. Drop this into each review and fill it in. A steady structure saves time and keeps your tone consistent.
Use Checklists
Keep a short list for statistics, a short list for transparency items, and a short list for ethics. Copy that list at the end of each report and tick what the paper already covers. Ask for only the items that matter for the claim and the journal’s policy.
Coordinate With Co-reviewers Through The Editor
If your review hinges on a specialised test or analysis, use the confidential note to flag that. Editors can assign an extra reviewer with the missing skill set. This helps avoid conflicting advice and keeps revision cycles lean.
Writing For Authors And For The Editor
Public Comments
Everything in your main report should be safe to share with the authors. Keep it specific, kind, and tied to evidence. Avoid broad claims about novelty or impact unless the journal asks for that lens.
Confidential Note To The Editor
Use this space to raise conflict disclosures, policy issues, or sensitive concerns. If you suspect misconduct, describe the signal and location. Do not include extra scientific arguments in this note if they could help the authors improve the paper; place those in the main report.
Common Snags And Practical Fixes
When The Paper Feels Dense
Ask for a stronger abstract, a schematic of the workflow, and clearer figure legends. Suggest merging overlapping panels and moving heavy detail to supplements with a short guide in the main text.
When Results And Claims Do Not Match
Point to each mismatch and propose a fix: narrow the claim, add a control, or rerun a key model with the right covariates. Tie each ask to a result you want to see and a place in the paper where it belongs.
When A Study Needs Reporting Help
Recommend the right checklist from the EQUATOR index and ask the authors to submit it with the revision. That improves clarity and speeds your re-review.
Grow As A Reviewer
Track Your Work
Keep a private log with dates, journals, topics, and a one-line reflection on what went well. Patterns will show where you shine and where you need a refresher. That log also helps when journals ask for your interests.
Say Yes Strategically
Pick reviews that align with your research, methods, or teaching. A focused set builds depth and keeps your feedback sharp. If an editor praises your report, save that note; it can support future editorial service.
Co-review And Mentorship
If a trainee helps, get permission first. List the trainee in your cover note so the journal records the contribution. Share your template, compare comments, and craft one voice before submitting.
Putting It All Together
Great reviews share three traits. They are clear: the editor and authors can follow your logic. They are fair: praise appears beside critique, and every ask links to a reason. They are fast: you deliver on time and keep requests focused on changes that matter. With those traits, your reviews will earn trust and help good work reach readers sooner.