Peer Reviewer Tips

Being a peer reviewer is both a privilege and a responsibility. The following tips are intended to help you give your best assessment, improve author manuscripts, and support the integrity of scholarly publishing.

Respond Promptly & Thoughtfully
  • As soon as you receive a review invitation, check whether the manuscript fits your expertise and whether you can meet the timeline. Responding promptly helps the editorial process move smoothly.
  • If uncertain about any aspect (scope, method, format), ask the editor for clarification early.
Read the Manuscript Holistically First
  • Begin by reading the manuscript in full, without writing comments, to get a general sense of the objectives, structure, claims, and flow.
  • Then go back to read more deeply, section by section (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Figures, References).
  • This two-stage reading helps you avoid jumping prematurely to criticisms and ensures you understand the work in context.
Use a Clear Structure in Your Review
  • Start with a short summary in your own words: what the paper aims to do, the methods used, and what it claims to show.
  • Then present your overall impression (strengths, novelty, significance).
  • Divide your main comments into major issues (those that must be addressed) and minor issues / stylistic points.
  • Number your comments, refer to line numbers, figure/table numbers, or sections, so authors and editors can respond clearly.
  • End with a recommendation (accept, major revision, minor revision, reject), directed to the editor, not in the author-facing section (unless journal policy allows).
  • Use a separate section for confidential / editorial remarks (ethical concerns, conflicts, or issues you don’t want the authors to see).
Be Constructive, Specific & Balanced
  • Whenever you point out a weakness or flaw, suggest how it can be improved (e.g. “consider reanalyzing using method X,” “Clarify whether variable Y was controlled,” “Improve figure labeling for clarity”).
  • Highlight strengths - novel ideas, good use of data, clear presentation, especially where authors have done well.
  • Avoid vague criticism (e.g. “this is weak”); instead use specific feedback tied to evidence.
  • Maintain a respectful, collegial tone, your goal is to help authors improve, not to discourage them.
Stay Within Scope & Focus
  • Focus on the parts you are qualified to evaluate (e.g. methodology, domain knowledge, statistics) rather than rewriting the whole manuscript.
  • If you are asked to review only specific parts (e.g. methods, data, supplementary materials), clearly state which parts your comments cover.
  • Do not overemphasize grammar or language unless errors impede understanding; these can often be handled by copy editing.
Ethical Vigilance
  • Keep all manuscript content and communications strictly confidential. Do not circulate drafts or use manuscript content for personal benefit.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, personal) before accepting — and if a new conflict arises, inform the editor immediately.
  • Avoid requesting excessive self-citations, or suggesting literature for citation purely to increase citation counts.
  • Do not use AI / generative tools (like large language models) to generate substantive review content (unless explicitly allowed, and with disclosure).
  • If you notice possible misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication), include a note in your confidential comments to the editor.
Prioritize Key Issues
  • In many manuscripts, not everything can be fixed. Focus on critical gaps: methodological flaws, unsupported claims, lack of clarity in core arguments, inadequate data, missing controls.
  • Once major issues are identified, deal with them first; only then address minor corrections or stylistic suggestions.
  • Avoid overwhelming authors with exhaustive minor points unless they truly affect clarity or correctness.
Be Mindful of Your Time & Commitments
  • Estimate realistically how much time you’ll need; if deadlines are tight, request extra time or decline rather than submitting a rushed review.
  • Avoid overcommitting - quality of review is more important than quantity.
  • Use your experience: over time, you’ll develop heuristics for common pitfalls, sections to prioritize, and ways to deliver efficient but thorough feedback.
Evaluate Revisions Thoughtfully
  • If invited to review a revised version, focus on whether authors have addressed your major concerns.
  • Do not rehash resolved points; instead, check whether new content or responses are sound and appropriate.
  • Consider whether the manuscript has improved overall and whether any new issues have arisen.
Continue Learning & Reflecting
  • Use post-review feedback (if editors share it) to refine your style, tone, and approach.
  • Review sample strong reviews or guidelines from established journals to see how they frame critique.
  • Stay updated on evolving peer review practices (open review, registered reports, transparency initiatives).
  • Periodically revisit your reviews to see where you might improve: clarity, balance, specificity, timeliness.