How To Give Good Peer-Review Feedback In Medicine | Do It Well

Great peer feedback in medicine lifts papers, improves patient care, and keeps science clean.
It starts with a simple aim: help the work and the colleague behind it. That means clarity, fairness, and care with words.
You are not a copy editor or a judge on a TV show. You are a guide with a flashlight, showing what already works and where the path is uneven.

This guide keeps things practical. You will see quick steps, sample lines you can use today, and compact tools that fit both manuscript reviews and day-to-day clinical peer input.
Use what fits your role and the setting you work in.

Set the aim first

Before reading a line, set a clear goal for the review. Pick one primary goal and one backup goal.
Tie them to impact on patients, readers, or trainees. Write the goals at the top of your notes to keep yourself on track.

Feedback goals, what to look for, and sample lines

How to give strong peer-review feedback in clinical medicine

Clinicians trade feedback in handovers, chart reviews, and case meetings. Good notes land best when they are timely, seen, and tied to facts.
Use a simple model and your message stays clean.

Use the SBI or SBIA model

SBI (Situation-Behavior-Impact) keeps the note grounded. SBIA adds an Ask at the end. Try this order:

• Situation: name the moment and context.
• Behavior: say what you saw or read, not motives.
• Impact: explain the effect on patients, team, or data.
• Ask: invite a fix or a plan.

Example: “On rounds today (S), during the consent talk you used acronyms (B). The family looked confused and paused care (I). Could we swap in plain terms and a teach-back next time? (A)”

Keep it timely and bite-sized

Short notes soon after the event help people act on them. Pick one or two items. Offer a try-this that fits the shift and the workload.

Make it two-way

Ask for the peer’s view. A quick “What did you see that I missed?” or “What would make this easier?” keeps the door open and brings out context you did not have.

Lean on reporting checklists

When you review a study or a quality project, use reporting checklists matched to the design.
The EQUATOR Network lists checklists for trials, cohorts, qualitative work, and more.
Point authors to the right list and ask them to declare which items they met. This avoids vague claims and nudges precise fixes.

Trials can follow CONSORT. Cohorts can use STROBE. Reviews can use PRISMA. Linking the right list speeds the review and helps readers trust the write-up.

Structure your review so it reads fast

Editors and colleagues scan first. Make the path obvious.

Open with a one-line take

Share your bottom line up front. One line that says fit, novelty, and safety. Keep it neutral in tone.

Add a two-to-three line summary

State the question, design, and main result in your own words. This shows you read the work and prepares the next notes for your points.

Group notes by priority

Use “Major” and “Minor” headings. Under each, use bullets. One idea per bullet. End each major point with a clear next step.

Quote line numbers or sections

Help the author find the spot fast. Quote short phrases or list line numbers. Keep quotes small.

Stats and methods: quick checks

You do not need to be a biostatistician to spot common gaps. A short list helps you scan fast and write grounded asks.

• Question and design: does the design match the question? Cross-sectional for a snapshot, cohort for direction over time, trial for cause.
• Sampling: who was eligible, who joined, and who was lost? Ask for a flow diagram if it would help.
• Outcomes: is the primary outcome named early and defined in full? Are secondary outcomes tagged as such?
• Randomization and blinding: if a trial, is the sequence clear and allocation concealed? Who stayed blinded?
• Power and size: state the plan and inputs, but do not ask for a post hoc power. Ask for CIs with the main effects.
• Missing data: how much, why, and how handled? Ask for a table that shows this plainly.
• Multiple testing: if many outcomes or subgroup looks, ask for a plan to control false positives.
• Modeling: give the full model, the covariates, and checks of assumptions. Ask for a link to code if the journal allows it.

When you see a gap, name it and offer a fix that fits the design. Point toward a reporting checklist item when you can, since that keeps the ask objective.

Figures and tables that teach fast

Good visuals pull weight. They help busy readers grasp both the message and the limits. While you read, ask if each visual earns its place.

• Titles that say the point, not just the variable names.
• Axes that are labeled in full and scaled in a way that does not hide spread.
• Footnotes that carry sample sizes, units, and how missing data were handled.
• Consistent colors and symbols across panels.
• Raw numbers in tables paired with percentages and CIs.

If a figure repeats the table, invite the authors to pick one. If space is tight, suggest a simple web appendix for items that help a small group of expert readers.

How to give peer review feedback for medical papers

Journal peer review adds duties beyond style and tone. You hold the draft, the data claims, and the trust of readers you will never meet.
A few ground rules protect that trust and make your notes stronger.

Honor confidentiality and fairness

Do not share the draft or the data with others. Keep notes secure. The COPE ethical guidance for reviewers spells out duties on privacy, fairness, and timeliness.
Match your tone to those norms and you will rarely go wrong.

Check conflicts early

If you have a close tie to the authors, a direct competitor project, or a stake in the topic, tell the editor and step back if asked. This saves time and protects readers.

Use journal criteria, not your pet topics

Rate the draft by the journal’s stated aims and audience. Save wish-list ideas for the end. Ask for changes only when they lift clarity, rigor, or patient risk.

Point to field standards

When you ask for changes, link to a standard. The ICMJE recommendations and the EQUATOR lists are safe anchors.
This turns opinion into a fair request.

Write with a tone that helps work move

Warmth and precision can live in the same sentence. Use direct verbs and short nouns. Say what to keep as well as what to trim.
Praise the part that carries the message, then name the change that would lift it.

Swap vague words for plain ones

Trade “strong” for a number. Trade “statistically clear” for the effect size and a CI. If a claim goes beyond the data, show the line and offer a smaller claim that still helps the reader.

Avoid harmful labels

Skip labels tied to a group. Point at the text, the table, the graph, or the step. This keeps the note about the work, not the person.

Common pitfalls and better moves

A simple template you can adapt

Paste this shape into your notes app or your journal portal. Tweak the labels to fit your field.

One-line take:
- Fit with journal/setting:
- Novelty or value add:
- Safety or ethics flags: none / minor / major

Two-to-three line summary:
- Question:
- Design and setting:
- Main result(s):
- Limits stated:

Major points:
1) [Issue] — why it matters — suggested fix
2) [Issue] — why it matters — suggested fix
3) [Issue] — why it matters — suggested fix

Minor points:
- Wording or clarity items
- Figure or table tweaks
- Missing definitions or acronyms

Checks:
- Reporting checklist used: CONSORT / STROBE / PRISMA / other
- Data sharing statement: present / missing
- Conflicts and funding: clear / unclear

Phrases that land well

• “The question is timely and the design suits it.”
• “I learned from the method; a brief flow diagram would help readers follow it.”
• “The claim outpaces the data here; a narrower line would still carry weight.”
• “Please define the primary outcome the first time it appears.”
• “Great figure; label the axes in full to guide quick reading.”
• “Helpful case series; add inclusion criteria so others can repeat the process.”
• “Thanks for the careful stats; a short note on missing data would round it out.”
• “Clear patient voice; add consent language and privacy steps used.”

Calibrate with editors and leads

Each venue has its own shape for a review. Some want a score, some want only comments, and many ask for both.
Read the request email and the portal prompts before you type the first word. Match your structure and length to that ask.
If a box asks for “confidential comments to the editor,” put only decision guidance there; keep tone the same as in your author notes.

Turnaround time matters. If the timeline is tight and the draft needs heavy work, send a courtesy note to the editor on day two with a short plan for when you will deliver.
If you cannot make the date, step back early. Editors remember fast, clean work and clear replies more than glowing prose.

Peer input inside hospitals follows the same pattern. Ask the lead for the aim of the review round. Is the target safety, flow, or teaching?
Use that aim to pick the two or three points you will bring to the table.

When to decline a review

Say no when you lack time, the topic sits outside your skill set, or a tie to the authors could color your view.
Offer two names of people who would fit. A fast decline helps the editor and the authors far more than a slow yes.

Bring it together

Good peer-review feedback in medicine is kind, clear, and useful. It points to field standards, lists changes that match the design, and respects privacy and time.
Pick a model, use a clean structure, and link to trusted guides when you ask for changes. With that, your feedback will read well, move work forward, and serve patients and readers.

Share back what you learn. Keep a log of common notes and paste lines from it to save time. Trade sample reviews with a mentor once a year and refresh your style. Small habits like these raise the quality of your reviews.