A good peer reviewer delivers fair, specific, and timely feedback that improves clarity, methods, ethics, and reporting while declaring any conflicts.
Peer review runs on trust. Editors trust you to weigh evidence with care; authors trust you to treat their work with respect. Do that, and your report helps the paper and the field. This guide gives you a repeatable workflow with steps, templates, and phrasing that keep quality high without wasting time.
Being A Good Peer Reviewer In Practice
Start with scope, time, and bias. If the topic sits outside your lane or your calendar is packed, say no quickly. When you do accept, guard confidentiality and stay objective. Two concise resources set the baseline: the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers and Nature’s note on confidential peer review.
Decide Fast: Accept Or Decline
Reply within a day or two. Editors juggle timelines, and a quick reply helps them move the manuscript to the right set of eyes. If you decline, suggest two or three specific names and say why they fit. If you accept, confirm you can meet the deadline and ask for any missing files such as raw data, code, or reporting checklists.
| Before You Accept | While You Read | Before You Submit |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Plan Your Read
Use two passes. On the first, capture the research question, primary outcome, main figures, and main conclusion. On the second, dig into design, sample size, power, randomization or matching, blinding, measurement quality, and the statistical model. If code or data are shared, try to run the core analysis or review the workflow and file structure. Flag any claims that depend on unshared material.
Judge The Work, Not The Authors
Keep comments on manuscript, not the people. Avoid guessing identities in single-anonymous review. If you suspect a conflict or prior contact might cloud your view, state it in the confidential section and let the editor decide. If a result challenges your own work, critique the evidence and logic instead of protecting turf.
Check Methods And Statistics With Care
Ask whether the design can answer the question posed. Look for prespecified outcomes, clear inclusion criteria, and transparent data handling. For estimation, check uncertainty intervals and the match between model and data; for hypothesis tests, look for full reporting and not only selective p-values. With prediction, review train/test splits, leakage risks, and calibration. When claims hinge on subgroup analyses, require a rationale and adequate power.
Look For Transparency And Reproducibility
Reproducible papers share what readers need to validate the main result: data (or a lawful sample), code, software versions, and exact settings. If privacy or licenses restrict sharing, ask for controlled access or sufficient detail for an audit trail. Encourage the use of reporting standards where relevant (such as CONSORT, PRISMA, or STROBE) and point to the specific sections that need updates.
Reviewer Report Structure That Works
Your review lands better when it follows a clear structure. Editors scan for the take-home message; authors look for a path to revision. Use this four-part layout and stick to numbered lists so each point is easy to action.
1) Summary (Neutral And Brief)
In two to three sentences, restate the question, approach, and main finding in your own words. This proves you understood the work and gives editors a quick snapshot. Avoid fresh critique here; save that for the next parts.
2) Major Points (What Blocks Acceptance)
List the issues that affect validity, trust, or reader value. Tie each item to a figure, table, or method step. Offer a remedy when possible: request missing analyses, suggest a design fix that is feasible within scope, or recommend reframing a claim to match the evidence. If added data would take months, say so and propose a narrower claim that fits the current dataset.
3) Minor Points (Polish And Clarity)
Collect smaller edits: ambiguous wording, mislabeled axes, unit errors, reference gaps, and typos. Share examples, not line-by-line rewrites. If English editing is needed, note it respectfully and point out a few representative sentences.
4) Confidential Comments To The Editor
Share any conflicts, novelty concerns, ethical red flags, or suspicions of image manipulation or plagiarism privately. If you think the paper fits a sister journal better, explain why. Keep this channel factual and concise; don’t use it to deliver a second, harsher review.
Ethics Every Reviewer Should Follow
Do not share the manuscript outside the review process without permission. Do not use ideas, data, or code from the submission in your own work until it is public. If you co-review with a trainee, notify the editor and add their name during submission so credit and transparency are preserved. If a conflict emerges mid-review, pause and alert the editor.
Write With A Helpful Tone
Critical does not mean abrasive. Explain the effect of each issue on validity or reader value, then suggest a fix. Avoid vague lines such as “the paper needs more experiments.” Name the exact gap and the smallest change that would address it. Show what works well, too; flagging strengths helps authors hold on to the core while revising.
Common Pitfalls And How To Avoid Them
Late Or Vague Reports
Missed deadlines slow every author in the queue. If life intervenes, write the editor at once and release the assignment. When you do submit, avoid one-line judgments. Give enough detail that an editor can base a decision on your report alone.
Scope Creep
Don’t ask for a new study that would take a grant cycle unless the journal’s bar calls for it. If the main result holds with tighter claims, say so and outline the revisions that would make the paper fit.
Methodological Preferences As Rules
Preferences are fine; dogma is not. If you suggest a different model or experiment, explain the trade-offs and show why it would change the conclusion instead of just the style of analysis.
Undeclared Conflicts
Financial ties, personal relationships, or direct competition can slant judgment. When in doubt, disclose. Nature’s policy on competing interests for reviewers offers helpful language you can adapt when you notify editors.
Time Management For Reviewers
Block uninterrupted time. A solid review for a typical paper often takes four to eight hours spread over two or three sessions. Book those slots on your calendar when you accept. Use a checklist so you don’t re-read to chase missing pieces.
A Repeatable Session Plan
Session 1 (skimming and planning): capture questions, map figures to claims, and list data or code you need. Session 2 (deep read): verify methods and stats, compare text to figures, and draft major points. Session 3 (polish): fill minor points, check tone, and finalize the summary and confidential notes.
Precision Editing That Saves Authors Time
When you flag an issue, point to the exact spot. Quote a sentence or give a figure and panel number. If a term is used loosely, propose a specific wording or definition. If a figure hides the point, suggest a clearer plot type or axis label. Tight, actionable edits reduce back-and-forth and raise acceptance odds after revision.
| Situation | Unhelpful Wording | Better Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Result seems overclaimed | “This conclusion is wrong.” | “The data indicate an association, not causation; please revise the claim or add an experiment that isolates the mechanism.” |
| Methods lack detail | “Methods are unclear.” | “Please add exact inclusion criteria, software versions, and the full model formula to enable replication.” |
| Writing is hard to follow | “Poorly written.” | “The argument in Section 3 jumps steps; a brief outline plus shorter paragraphs would help readers track the logic.” |
| Statistics look shaky | “Stats are flawed.” | “The analysis uses multiple tests without adjustment; please justify the approach or switch to a prespecified primary endpoint.” |
| Scope mismatch | “Out of scope.” | “The work suits a methods-focused venue; if kept here, narrow the claim to applied performance on the stated domain.” |
How To Be A Good Peer Reviewer For Different Study Types
Clinical Or Field Studies
Check ethics approval, consent, preregistration if applicable, outcome definitions, handling of missing data, adverse event reporting, and whether subgroup claims reflect prespecified plans.
Bench, Lab, Or Methods Papers
Look for replicates, controls, reagent details, instrument settings, and sensitivity checks. Ask for raw images or primary readouts if figures show only processed outputs.
Data Science And Machine Learning
Confirm data provenance, leakage checks, baselines, ablations, and uncertainty. Require a clear statement of limits, failure cases, and computing resources to set expectations for reuse.
Quick Workflow You Can Repeat
- Accept only when you have fit, time, and no conflicts.
- Skim to map claims; request missing files early.
- Read deeply with a checklist; verify main analyses.
- Draft a neutral summary; separate major from minor items.
- Write numbered points with evidence and remedies.
- Add private notes on ethics, novelty, and venue fit.
- Proofread tone and anonymity; submit on time.
Finishing Touches Before You Submit
Run a last pass for neutrality and clarity. Replace blunt claims with evidence-linked comments. Remove any phrasing that hints at identity. Confirm that any co-reviewer is named to the editor. Upload marked-up files only if the journal allows annotations. Then send the review and watch for editor questions.