Tips for Reviewing

Peer review serves two purposes. First, it helps journal editors assess the quality

and suitability of submissions and guides their decision to accept or reject

manuscripts. Second, it helps authors improve their work. A great review

addresses both goals.

require more time to complete the review, inform the editor before agreeing.

• Knowledgeable

A reviewer should be able to address the manuscript’s methods, statistics, and

overall contribution to the literature.

• Objective

Agree to review only if you can provide a review that addresses the science

without influence by personal relationships or financial interest.

• Familiar with the Journal’s Scope and Audience

A primary goal of peer review is to determine the suitability of the work for the

journal and its audience; knowledge of both is essential to provide guidance to

after publication.

• Collegial

The tone of your review should be polite and constructive.

• Fair

Recommend additional experiments only if these are central to the manuscript

and essential to make the manuscript suitable for publication. Your own

curiosity or preferred methods do not justify recommending additional

experiments.

• Focused

Address the science; you do not need to copyedit the manuscript.

1. First, in comments to both the authors and editors, summarize the main

question the report addresses and provide some conceptual context; this helps

the editor understand the content of the article, and it helps the authors

understand your main take-away from the article (it may differ from their

intended message).

2. Address the following:

a. Is the question addressed relevant and important?

b. Is the report of interest to the journal’s readers?

c. Is the methodology appropriate?

acceptance) and minor (non-essential or cosmetic and easily addressed)

c. Support your comments with citations from the literature if appropriate,

e.g., relevant prior work by others or conflicting studies

to the submission (CONSORT for reporting randomized clinical trials,

microarray experiment, etc.)

e. Avoid making a recommendation concerning acceptance or rejection

4. Comments to the editor:

a. Give your reasoning for your recommendation (acceptance, revision and

the authors. The authors should not get a more favorable impression of

your assessment from the comments they receive than the editor does

after reading your confidential comments.

e. Mention any suspected ethical concerns (human subject or animal

treatment, plagiarism, duplicate submission or publication)

Notify the Editorial Office if you realize a personal conflict of interest after you

have agreed to review. Note whether you believe this disqualifies you as a

reviewer.

• Lucey B. Peer review: how to get it right – 10 tips. The Guardian Higher

Education Network Blog. Published 27 September 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-

network/blog/2013/sep/27/peer-review-10-tips-research-paper (accessed

11-11-2014)

• Marusic M, Sambunjak D, Marusic A (2005) Guide for peer reviewers of

scientific articles in the Croatian Medical Journal. Croat Med J 46:326-332

• Might M. How to peer review. http://matt.might.net/articles/how-to-peer-

review/ (accessed 11-11-2014)

• Miller B, Pevehouse J, Rogowski R, et al (2013) How to be a peer reviewer: A