To become a peer reviewer, build subject expertise, signal interest to editors, complete training, and deliver clear, ethical reports.
What Peer Reviewers Actually Do
Peer reviewers act as independent eyes for editors. You read a manuscript, check methods and claims, flag gaps, and suggest precise fixes. You judge fit for the journal and the field, not personal taste. You protect author privacy, keep files confidential, and declare any conflict. Done well, your report helps the editor reach a clear decision and helps the authors improve their study.
Why This Path Pays Off
Reviewing sharpens your reading, speeds up your own writing, and builds trusted links with editors. Many boards pick new editors from strong reviewers. Review reports also count as service on hiring and promotion files when you log them in trusted places, such as your ORCID record or a Web of Science reviewer profile.
Paths To Your First Review
Editors build reviewer lists from several signals. Use the routes below in parallel to speed up your first invite.
| Action | What It Looks Like | Proof Editors See |
|---|---|---|
| Publish in your niche | A recent paper on the same topic | Linked ORCID and journal profiles |
| Present at meetings | Talks or posters in the right sessions | Program listings and slides on your site |
| Join boards or societies | Active membership and committee work | Bio pages and public rosters |
| Ask a mentor to recommend you | Short email from a known editor or senior reviewer | Direct note to the handling editor |
| Volunteer on publisher portals | Fill skills, keywords, and methods in reviewer sign-up forms | Matches in the editor search tool |
| Finish a reviewer course | Certificates from a reputable program | Badge or link in your profile |
How To Become A Journal Reviewer: Practical Pathways
Start by tightening your research profile. Use a consistent name, add your ORCID, and list methods, software, and subfields. Many editor systems surface reviewers by field keywords; precise terms raise your match rate.
Next, signal interest. Send a short, targeted note to the journal that maps your skills to their scope and current calls. Keep it lean: one paragraph on expertise, one on recent work, and two or three sample topics you can cover.
Learn the ethics and workflow used across publishers. The COPE guidance for reviewers sets clear norms on privacy, bias, and conflicts. Large open-access groups, such as PLOS, publish reviewer guides that mirror what editors expect inside the form—see the PLOS reviewer guidelines.
Signal Your Expertise
List your niche on your home page and lab page. Post slides and preprints so editors can see your range. Add method tags and synonyms in your profiles so searches catch you even when terms vary.
A Short Outreach Email That Works
Subject: Volunteer reviewer for [Journal Name] — [Topic]
Dear [Editor Name],
I am a [position] at [institution]. My work covers [topic], with recent papers on [two short items]. I can review studies using [methods/software], including [two specifics]. If helpful, I can take one test assignment in the next month.
Best regards,
[Name], ORCID: [ID]
Build A Searchable Profile
Create or update your profiles in publisher systems and on indexing sites. Link ORCID to your Scopus and Web of Science records. In reviewer portals, pick focused keywords, not broad labels. Add languages, code skills, and data types you know well.
Training That Editors Respect
Free courses from major publishers and learned societies teach format, ethics, and tone. Pick one and add the certificate to your site. Practice by co-reviewing once with a mentor, and ask the editor to record the co-review under your name.
How Editors Search And Select Reviewers
Editors search databases by field terms, recent papers, and method tags. They scan your last five papers, the abstract language, and any reviewer history. Strong picks answer fast, return balanced reports on time, and avoid conflicts. A fast and fair record gets you onto the short list for repeat work.
Ethics And Professional Conduct
Confidentiality comes first. Do not share the manuscript or run it in any AI tool. Do not use the ideas or data. If the paper overlaps with your work, or a friend or rival is involved, tell the editor and step back if needed.
Keep bias out of your report. Judge the study, not the author names, country, or affiliations. Keep a record of your decision path so you can explain it if asked by the editor.
Write A Review That Gets You Invited Back
Open with a one-line verdict for the editor: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Then move to a two-part body: points for the editor, and comments for authors. Use numbered, actionable points. Quote line numbers when you can.
Be firm on evidence and cautious on scope. Ask for extra experiments only when they are needed to support the main claim. Suggest cheaper or faster checks when they serve the same aim. Thank authors for any shared data or code.
Reviewer Quality Checklist
Before you send the report, scan this list. It keeps tone balanced, points clear, and files tidy.
| Item | What To Verify | Where To Note It |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and fit | Study aligns with journal aims and audience | Opening lines to editor |
| Methods and data | Design, sample size, stats, and data links are sound | Numbered points for authors |
| Claims | Text matches evidence; no overreach | Line-by-line notes |
| Clarity | Figures, legends, and tables are readable | Specific edits by figure or table |
| Ethics | Conflicts and approvals are stated; privacy is protected | Editor notes if missing |
| Tone and bias | Language stays neutral; feedback stays respectful | Final pass before submit |
How To Read A Manuscript Efficiently
First Pass
Skim title, abstract, and figures. Note the main claim and the data that support it. Check whether the design can answer the stated question. Park details for later.
Second Pass
Read methods and results with care. Look for blinding, randomization, sample size planning, and raw data access. Mark places where a clear control, a robustness check, or a data link would resolve doubt.
Third Pass
Read the discussion and references. Compare claims against cited work. Spot novelty and overlap. Gather short quotes or line numbers you can cite in your notes.
What Editors Want In A Report
- Clarity: short sections, clear verdict, and numbered points.
- Fairness: the same standard for friends and rivals.
- Actionable notes: specific fixes that match the claim.
- Proof of care: direct quotes or line refs where needed.
- On-time delivery: a steady record with few extensions.
Common Mistakes To Avoid
- Writing a review that reads like a public post. Keep names and files private.
- Letting tone drift into sarcasm. Stick to facts and fixes.
- Demanding fresh research that sits far outside the study aim.
- Forgetting data links or code checks when the field norms expect them.
- Declining late. If you cannot review, tell the editor right away.
After The Decision
If the editor invites a re-review, start from your own notes and check whether each point was handled. If the authors give new data, re-check the analysis path, not just the final figure. If the editor overrules your view, thank them for the context and ask how you can serve better next time.
When a paper you reviewed appears, see how your notes shaped the final draft. This feedback loop teaches you which points move the needle and which lines can be trimmed in future reports. Save one or two anonymized snippets that capture your style; they help mentors coach you and help junior colleagues learn the craft with permission.
Early Career Strategies
Pick one focused lane first: a method, dataset type, or model you know well. Offer a narrow window for quick wins, such as image analysis in one disease area or a stats check for a common design. One crisp lane beats a broad claim you cannot cover. As your record grows, add one new lane per year and update your profiles so editor searches keep finding you.
Your First Year Plan
Month 1: finish one reviewer course, polish your profiles, and draft two outreach notes for target journals. Month 2: attend one field seminar and post a short methods note on your site. Month 3: send your outreach and track replies. Month 4: if you land an invite, accept one paper that fits your lane and log your time per task. Month 5: request feedback from the editor after you submit your first report. Month 6: refresh your bio with the new service line and add a short section on topics you can review. Months 7–9: aim for one or two more assignments, spaced well. Months 10–12: review your notes, gather two sample snippets, and ask one editor for a brief call to learn how you can help more next year. Repeat the cycle and grow your reviewer network.