How to write and publish a scientific paper - Barbara Gastel, Robert A. Day 2022
Peer-reviewing a scientific paper
How to provide peer review
Other topics in scientific communication
If you are a peer reviewer, realize that the item being reviewed is confidential. Do not reveal its content. Do not discuss with those around you the authors’ writing skills (or lack thereof). Do not ask others to collaborate on the review without first obtaining permission from the editor. If there is a valid reason for collaboration—for instance, if a colleague could better evaluate part of the research, or if collaborating on the review could help educate a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow—the editor is likely to grant you permission. However, permission should be sought, not assumed.
Journals commonly use online systems for submission of peer reviews. Whether or not it does so, a journal is likely to seek two types of input from each reviewer: a confidential evaluation, for use by the editors only, and comments for the editors to share with the authors. Some journals supply forms for these purposes. The form for feedback to editors may contain rating scales and provide room for comments about the quality of the work and whether the work should be published. Examples of items that the rating scales may address are the importance of the research question, the originality of the work, the validity of the methods used, the soundness of the conclusions, the clarity of the writing, and the suitability for the journal’s readership.
(ScienceCartoonsPlus.com)
Your comments for the editor to share with the authors typically should begin by listing what you perceive as the main strengths and main limitations of the paper. You should not, however, tell the authors whether you consider the paper publishable in the journal; that decision is up to the editor. After the general comments, you generally should provide a section-by-section list of comments on the specific content of the paper. For ease in identification, it usually is best to specify the items you comment on by page, paragraph, and line. Both evaluate what is present and note omissions. Strive for balance; do not nitpick, but do not hesitate to note real problems either. Be sure your points are worded clearly. If reasons for recommendations might not be obvious, provide explanations.
In preparing the review, of course avoid bias. Also, avoid taking advantage of insider information; before the paper is published, you should not use the paper’s content to advance your own research or (if the paper concerns a product) to decide about investments. Also, avoid undue delays; the editor and author are waiting. If you find that you cannot submit the review on time, promptly inform the editor.
Your main task as a peer reviewer is to evaluate the content of the paper. Is the research of high quality? If not, what are the problems? Has all the appropriate content been provided? Should any content be deleted? In answering the last two questions, you may find it useful to review the sections of this book on the respective sections of a scientific paper. Other potentially useful resources include a checklist (Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee 2001) that appeared in a report providing guidance for peer reviews. Although some items in this checklist apply only to some types of research, it provides a useful framework.
As a peer reviewer, you are not expected to comment in detail on the writing. Your task does not include identifying every punctuation error and misspelling; if the paper is accepted, a copy editor can correct such problems. However, it can be worthwhile to comment in general on the clarity, conciseness, and correctness of the writing; to note passages that are ambiguous; to suggest any reorganization that could improve the paper; and to remark on the design of figures and tables. If the paper contains highly specialized wording that you think that a copy editor might have difficulty revising properly, consider providing some guidance. Also, consider giving extra help with wording if you can tell that the author’s native language is not English.
In preparing comments intended for the authors, remember that the authors are human beings. Almost certainly, they care greatly about their work, are sensitive about it, and will be most receptive to feedback if it is given in a constructive tone. Therefore, avoid sarcasm and phrase your comments tactfully; try to ensure that suggestions are specific enough for the authors to follow. Set a positive tone by first stating the strengths of the paper; then, after offering suggestions, perhaps end the review with words of encouragement. Although the section-by-section or line-by-line comments should be mainly suggestions, an occasional compliment can be included. Whether or not the journal accepts the paper, the review can help educate authors and thus improve their current paper and later ones. Indeed, if an author appears to be a beginning researcher or seems to come from someplace where international norms of scientific publication are not well known, consider taking extra effort to make the review educational, either directly or by suggesting resources that can improve one’s scientific writing.
Should you sign your review, or should it be anonymous? Policies in this regard differ among journals. Advocates of anonymous review, which is common in the sciences, say that it allows reviewers to be more honest—especially when, for instance, a young researcher is evaluating a paper by someone much senior. On the other hand, advocates of signed reviews say that they encourage reviewers to be more responsible. Some journals allow reviewers to decide whether to identify themselves. The journal’s instructions for reviewers should indicate its policy. If in doubt, ask whoever invited you to do the review.
Finally, keep track of your reviewing. Perhaps add the reviewing to your CV. (Because peer review generally is confidential, as previously noted, one normally lists just the journal, granting agency, or book publisher reviewed for, not the specific item reviewed.) Consider documenting your reviewing through the tracking service Publons (publons.com/about/home). When applicable, let publishers update your ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) record to indicate your reviewing (see info.orcid.org/documentation/workflows/peer-review-workflow). Likewise, for purposes such as annual performance reviews, perhaps keep track of entities reviewed for and the number of reviews completed.