Stano Pekar
How to write a peer review
Why to peer review?
 Important service to the scientific community
 Based on reciprocity
 Requires expertise, critical thinking, ability to give feedback,
sensitivity to the feelings of authors
 Aim: to provide neutral, fair and balanced assessment to
assist editor the decision process
Benefits of reviewing
 Helps to remove reviewer’s bias (own mistakes)
 Improves communication of results to audience
 Can bring new ideas, overlooked literature
 Develops critical thinking
 Opens new advances in methods
 You can earn Publons credit
 You can publish via platform Peerage of Science
When to accept?
Accept if:
 It is within your area of expertise
 It is free of conflict of interest
 You have sufficient time by deadline
Otherwise do not accept
Reading
 Read it at last twice
 Make notes
 Pause and think
 Do not hurry with the review
 Remember that authors read the paper more times than you
did
Review forms
 A few journals provide review forms with dozens of detailed
questions
 Many journals have simple forms with a few questions
 Some journals provide no forms at all
 Some journals offer single-double-blind reviews
Report
To authors:
 A brief summary – what the paper is about
 General assessment
 Major concerns
 Minor comments
To editor:
 A short overall assessment for the editor
 Acknowledge your lack of expertise to the editor with stats, for
example
 Sign review?
General assessment
 How novel and important to the field the paper is?
 Highlight strengths
 Are you convinced about the results?
 Does it answer questions set in Intro?
 Are methods used suitable to answer the research question?
 Do findings support claims in the paper?
 Is it well-written – understandable to the audience of the
journal?
 Is it suitable for the journal?
Major concerns
 Does the theory connects to data?
 Is the study rationale clearly articulated?
 Do hypotheses follow logically?
 Are methods robust and well controlled?
 Are statistical analyses appropriate?
 Are results well interpreted and discussed?
 Is presentation of results clear?
 Is Introduction and Discussion well developed?
Minor comments
 Is the manuscript well organized?
 Are methods clearly explained?
 Are tables and figures well explained, self-explanatory and
connected to the text?
 Check for typos
 Grammar mistakes
 Does the manuscript follows submission guidelines?
 Other formatting issues
 Missing references
Avoid
 Personal judgments or value-ladden adjectives
 Always criticize the paper not the authors
 Make a constructive critique
 Remember that authors know more about the study system
than you
 Try to be “in authors shoes” – consider his means (e.g.,
financial), logistic problems, etc.
 Avoid suggestion to replace by a completely different study
Recommendation
 Accept (without any change) – only typos
 Minor revision – minor problems
 Major revision/resubmission – solid data and design but
flaws in interpretation, inappropriate analyses
 Reject – badly written, poor English, weak data, serious
flaws
Journal editors
 Are your colleagues (other researchers)
 May do the job for free – have little time for assessment
 Work hard to improve the journal quality
 Have to deal with too many submissions – many
contributions must be rejected
Receiving decision
 Accepted
 Revision invited
 Rejection with/without a review
 if rejected do not feel discouraged it is normal
 Consider writing rebutal letter to the editor
 Reformat and submit elsewhere
Response to reviewers’
 Respond to every comment
 In most cases comments are due to misunderstanding -
rephrase
 Re-submit before given deadline