How to write and publish a scientific paper - Barbara Gastel, Robert A. Day 2022

Responding to a request for peer review
How to provide peer review
Other topics in scientific communication

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.

—Franklin P. Jones

Responding to a request for peer review

Once you have become an author, you may receive invitations to be a peer reviewer—in other words, to evaluate work by others in your field. Journal editors may ask you to review papers being considered for publication. Funding agencies may ask you to review grant proposals. Book editors may ask you to review the proposals or manuscripts for books. Given that preparing peer reviews can entail much time and effort, why should you accept such invitations? And when should you decline them?

Peer review helps editors decide what to publish, and it helps authors improve their work. Similarly, peer review of grant proposals helps funding agencies make sound decisions and helps scientists refine their research. Others in your field provide this service to you when they review items that you have written. Being a good citizen in the scientific community includes providing this service in return.

In addition, peer review can have other benefits. It can help you keep up in your field and maintain your critical skills. It can improve your own writing by helping you discern what affects the quality of writing. Listing entities for which you peer-review can enhance your curriculum vitae (CV). Peer-reviewing for a journal can lead to serving on its editorial board and becoming an editor of the journal. Although peer-reviewing generally is unpaid, sometimes reviewers are paid or otherwise compensated. For example, reviewers of book manuscripts commonly receive a little money in appreciation of their efforts; if they prefer, sometimes they receive some books of their choice from the publisher instead.

Sometimes, though, you should refuse the invitation to peer-review or ask the editor whether to refuse it. If you lack time to complete the review adequately by the deadline, decline the opportunity and, if possible, suggest other potential reviewers. Also, if you believe that you lack sufficient expertise to prepare a sound review, inform the editor. The editor may then ask you to suggest potential reviewers whom you consider better suited. Or the editor may explain that you were approached because of your expertise regarding one aspect of the research, and other reviewers will evaluate other aspects.

If you decide not to accept a request to peer-review, be sure to inform the journal. Do so promptly, so the editor can seek a different reviewer. Do not assume that failure to reply will be seen as declining the invitation. The editor—and the author—should not be left in limbo.

Inform the editor if you have conflicts of interest—that is, anything in your background that could interfere, or appear to interfere, with your objectivity in doing the review. For instance, if you have collaborated with any of the authors, if you have a financial interest relating to the research, or if an author is your friend, enemy, or former spouse, tell the editor. Some journals routinely ask potential reviewers to state anything that might be a conflict of interest. Even if the journal does not, inform the editor if you think you might have one. The editor then can decide whether to retain you as a peer reviewer, while keeping the item in mind, or whether to seek a different reviewer.

What if you want to become a peer reviewer but have not been asked? Volunteer. For some journals, you can apply online to be added to the pool of potential reviewers. If the journal website does not include such an application, contact the editor to express your interest. Journals almost always are seeking more reviewers, and they are eager to enlarge and diversify their reviewer pools. Volunteering can aid the journal and your own career.