Once You Have Reviewed a Manuscript Which of the Following May You Do

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should y'all leave out? And how should the review exist formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer written report and then it'southward easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also assistance you proceed your comments organized.

Think nearly structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important data at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and whatsoever additional points at the very bottom.

Here's how your outline might await:

1. Summary of the inquiry and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between yous and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript'south strengths and weaknesses. Recollect about this as your "take-abode" message for the editors. Stop this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Word of specific areas for improvement

It's helpful to divide this section into ii parts: one for major issues and i for minor issues. Within each section, you tin talk about the biggest problems first or become systematically figure-by-figure or claim-past-merits. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also arrive easier for the authors to respond to each indicate). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or effigy and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what y'all're talking about.

Major vs. minor problems

What'southward the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript tin proceed. Brand sure you focus on what isfundamental for the current study. In other words, information technology's non helpful to recommend additional piece of work that would exist considered the "next step" in the report. Pocket-sized issues are still important just typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Hither are some examples of what would might get in the "minor" category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major consequence)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should nowadays p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammer, and phrasing bug

three. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments almost the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns well-nigh the submission that you'd want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns well-nigh ethical guidelines or linguistic communication quality. Any serious issues should be raised straight and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you're willing to await at a revised version of the manuscript.

Practice not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered hither will not exist passed along to the authors. If you lot're not sure what should become in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal kickoff before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offering a infinite for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Become this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving constructive feedback can be even more than challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to talk over what the authors would need to do in guild to authorize for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can employ to ameliorate their study.

If you've ever had your ain work reviewed, you already know that it's not always piece of cake to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review yous'd want to receive if y'all were the author. Fifty-fifty if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that y'all would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like "the authors' give-and-take of 10" instead of "your word of X." This will depersonalize the feedback and go along the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

Practise

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific and then the authors know what they need to practice to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the merely time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments as well.
• Recollect to say what you liked nigh the manuscript!

Don't

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of telescopic for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—y'all don't need to do their piece of work for them.
• Apply the review to promote your own inquiry or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs meaning editing for linguistic communication and writing quality, merely mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more than time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in heed the guidelines higher up, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample "before" and "later on" reviewer comments

✗ Before

"The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don't retrieve they accept read any of the literature on this topic."

✓ After

"The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this surface area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such every bit Darwin et al."

---

✗ Before

"The writing is and then bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish information technology."

✓ Afterward

"While the study appears to be audio, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors piece of work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text."

---

✗ Before

"It'due south obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn't utilize information technology. This is a big error."

✓ After

"The authors are off to a expert first, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more than information that clarifies and justifies their option of methods."

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

Yous might find yourself in a state of affairs where yous're not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a effective and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you recollect: The manuscript is fatally flawed.
What you lot could say: "The report does not announced to be sound" or "the authors have missed something crucial".

What you think: You lot don't completely empathize the manuscript.
What you lot could say: "The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid defoliation…"

What you think: The technical details don't make sense.
What yous could say: "The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied."

What you think: The writing is terrible.
What yous could say: "The authors should revise the language to amend readability."

What you think: The authors have over-interpreted the findings.
What you could say: "The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this determination. Specifically…"

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write upwardly their reports and requite constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure y'all plow in your report on fourth dimension. Demand an extension? Tell the journal then that they know what to await. If yous need a lot of actress time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the filibuster.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You'll be more than likely to be asked to review once more if you lot provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it's your first review for a journal, it's important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself in one case and you'll get asked to review again!

Related Resources

• How To How to Choose the Journal That'due south Right for Your Report

  There's a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your piece of work. Acquire how to cull a journal that will assist your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

  Read more

• How To How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

  The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a written report. An effective discussion informs readers what can exist learned from your…

  Read more

• How To How to Study Statistics

  Ensure ceremoniousness and rigor, avoid flexibility and in a higher place all never dispense results In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the eye of…

  Read more

abbottaree1938.blogspot.com

Source: https://plos.org/resource/how-to-write-a-peer-review/

Share this post