New to peer review? This guide shows clear steps, tools, and templates to deliver fair, useful reports editors can trust.
How To Become A Journal Reviewer: Step-By-Step
Editors invite reliable people who match the paper’s topic and methods. Build that match, then let journals find you. Here’s a short plan that works across fields.
- Define your scope. List two or three areas where you can judge novelty, methods, and interpretation with confidence.
- Create a visible profile. Keep ORCID, Google Scholar, and institutional pages updated with keywords and recent papers.
- Signal availability to journals. Many sites offer reviewer forms; fill them with precise topics, methods, and statistics you handle well.
- Start with co-reviewing. Ask a trusted senior colleague to include you on a review and name you to the editor. Many journals allow this when disclosed.
- Publish and present. Even one solid paper in your niche helps editors map you to incoming submissions.
- Reply fast to invitations. If you can’t review, decline within a day and suggest two specific names with emails and reasons.
- Stay reliable. Deliver on time, follow the journal’s form, and keep the manuscript confidential.
Use this quick matrix to judge readiness before you say yes.
| Area | What Editors Check | Proof You Can Show |
|---|---|---|
| Expertise & Scope | Journal fit; topic depth | Recent papers, talks, keywords on profiles |
| Methods | Familiar techniques, field norms | Method sections you have authored |
| Statistics | Appropriate tests, reporting | Courses, analyses in prior work |
| Ethics & Integrity | Bias awareness; conflicts | COI policy link; training badges |
| Availability | Turnaround within deadline | History of on-time reviews |
| Language | Clear written feedback | Sample reviews; editor praise |
| Scope Limits | Honest boundaries | Specific topics listed |
| Data & Code | Reproducibility signals | GitHub, OSF, or data links |
| Past Reviews | Quality and tone | Publons or journal thank-you notes |
| Confidentiality | Respect for process | No sharing; secure devices |
Accept Or Decline: Make The Right Call
Read the abstract, cover letter, and journal scope first. Say yes only when you can judge the work fairly and finish within the window.
Check The Fit
Does the topic match your expertise? If not, suggest two reviewers with emails and explain their match in one line.
Conflicts And Bias
Decline when a conflict exists: recent coauthorship, shared grants, close mentorship, or a competing submission. If you feel strong prior views about the topic, tell the editor in the confidential box.
Time And Scope
Most journals expect two to four weeks; pick a date you can meet. If the paper sits outside a portion of your expertise, say which parts you can judge well.
Plan Your Review From Day One
Break the work into three passes so you avoid tunnel vision.
Set Up
Download the files, create a secure folder, and note the deadline in your calendar. Skim the journal’s reviewer form to learn what the editor needs.
First Pass
Read the abstract, intro, and conclusion without touching the PDF. Write a one-line summary in your own words; note the main claim and why it matters.
Deep Pass
Work through methods, results, figures, tables, and supplements. Check sample sizes, controls, assumptions, effect sizes, and uncertainty reporting. Mark places where the claim goes beyond the data; capture page and line numbers.
Final Checks
Re-read the title and abstract with the figures open; the story should align. Run a quick search for key citations the paper missed, then draft questions.
Write Clear, Actionable Feedback
Editors want concise comments that help authors fix problems and improve clarity.
Major Points
- Start with a two-sentence overview of strengths and the main concern tied to the paper’s claim.
- Group related issues: design, data handling, statistics, interpretation, or presentation; number them for easy replies.
- Quote short fragments when precision matters and give page and line numbers for each quote.
- Ask for additional tests only when they are necessary to support the central claim.
- Flag missing citations with two or three specific references rather than a general note.
Minor Points
Collect small fixes: typos, figure labels, acronyms, units, and style; keep the list short and tidy.
Tone That Helps
Use neutral verbs, second-person sparingly, and specific suggestions; write as a coach, not a judge.
- Better: “The claim would read tighter with effect sizes in the abstract.”
- Better: “Please report exact p values and confidence intervals for key outcomes.”
- Better: “Figure 3 needs raw data ranges; a small table below the plot would help.”
Ethics, Confidentiality, And AI Use
Do not share files or ideas from a manuscript outside the review channel. State any past ties that may shape your view and ask the editor for guidance when unsure. Follow journal policy on AI tools: never paste confidential text into public systems; if you use grammar aids, disclose that in the confidential note.
For standards on good practice, see the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Wiley’s step-by-step guide to peer review.
When You Recommend A Decision
Match your recommendation to the strength of evidence and the journal’s bar.
Accept
Rare on a first round; the study is sound, clear, and complete.
Minor Revision
Core claim stands; edits or small analyses can fix the rest.
Major Revision
Major gaps exist; authors can address them with added analyses, data, or clearer logic.
Reject
The question is out of scope, the evidence is weak, or the design cannot support the claim.
Always give a short rationale in the confidential box that mirrors your public comments.
Review Comment Planner
Use this table to draft precise comments that map to the paper’s sections.
| Section | What To Cover | Helpful Phrases |
|---|---|---|
| Title & Abstract | Claim, scope, key numbers | “State effect size in abstract.” |
| Introduction | Motivation, context, gap | “Clarify the gap your study fills.” |
| Methods | Design, sampling, controls | “Define inclusion criteria and blinding.” |
| Data & Code | Access, licenses, versioning | “Share repository link and README.” |
| Results | Effect sizes, uncertainty | “Report CIs and exact p values.” |
| Figures & Tables | Axes, units, readability | “Label units; add raw ranges.” |
| Discussion | Limits, alternatives, claims | “Tone down claims beyond evidence.” |
| References | Currency, balance, omissions | “Add X, Y for completeness.” |
| Letter To Editor | Conflicts, scope, decision | “My confidence is medium for stats.” |
After You Submit, Build Your Reputation
Record the review in your journal profile, link it to ORCID, and opt in to recognition programs when offered. Say yes again when the editor returns a revision; speed and continuity help authors reach a clean result. If you spot serious concerns later, message the editor; private notes beat surprise comments in the system.
Common Mistakes New Reviewers Avoid
- Writing without reading the author guidelines and the journal’s reviewer form.
- Using jargon without a short explanation the authors can act on.
- Requesting new experiments that do not affect the main claim.
- Policing language instead of fixing a few key clarity issues.
- Pointing out a missing citation without naming specific papers.
- Copying long sentences from the manuscript into the report.
- Revealing identity in the public comments when the review is blind.
- Sharing files with students without the editor’s permission.
- Letting a tool rewrite the whole report; tools can miss nuance and context.
- Skipping the confidential note to the editor when judgment is mixed.
Field-Specific Tips, Minus The Jargon
Clinical And Health Sciences
Check trial registration, consent statements, and adverse event reporting; request CONSORT or STROBE where relevant.
Computing And Data Science
Assess dataset access, code release, versioning, and license; ask for reproducible scripts and seeds.
Social Sciences
Probe sampling, instruments, preregistration, and robustness checks; ask for clear policy on missing data.
Chemistry And Materials
Verify spectra, crystal data, and safety notes; match claims to analytical evidence and stoichiometry.
Math And Theory
Check proof structure, definitions, and counterexamples; request small examples that illustrate the claim.
Email Templates You Can Adapt
Accepting An Invitation
Thank you for the invitation; I can return a full review by DATE and will cover topic X and Y.
Declining And Suggesting Names
Thanks for reaching out; this paper sits outside my scope, and I recommend NAME and NAME with emails for the reasons below.
Speed Without Cutting Corners
Batch work: read once each morning, then write in a single session; use a numbered outline to stay on track. Set a mid-point checkpoint with questions for the editor; short clarifications early can save days.
Checklist Before You Hit Submit
- Summary paragraph written in plain, neutral language.
- All major comments numbered and grouped by theme.
- Each claim linked to specific evidence or lines.
- Requests limited to items that affect the claim.
- Minor fixes listed once, not scattered across text.
- Tone respectful; no sarcasm or personal remarks.
- Decision rationale mirrors the public report.
- Confidential note explains conflicts, scope, and confidence.
Path From First Review To Trusted Reviewer
Pick two journals in your lane and deliver three solid reviews within a year. Ask editors for feedback on one report; learn what helped their decision. Offer to review revisions of papers you handled; consistency builds trust. Present at a local seminar on peer review craft and share tidy examples.
Further Training And Resources
Many publishers run free courses and webinars that teach report structure, ethics, and practical editing. You can practice on open reviews from journals that publish reports, then model the clarity and layout. Two helpful starting points are the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Wiley’s guide linked above. Grow with each report, and keep notes for future rounds.