During a Peer Review of Estelitas Final Draft

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you lot leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

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

Review Outline

Utilise an outline for your reviewer report and then it's easy for the editors and writer to follow. This will also help you lot keep your comments organized.

Call back about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed past details and examples in the center, and whatsoever boosted points at the very bottom.

Hither'due south how your outline might expect:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your ain words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight whatever major differences in perspective between y'all and the other reviewers. Requite an overview of the manuscript'southward strengths and weaknesses. Call back about this as your "take-domicile" message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Word of specific areas for improvement

It'due south helpful to divide this department into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Inside each section, you can talk about the biggest issues get-go or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each particular so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you're talking almost.

Major vs. small-scale issues

What's the divergence between a major and minor consequence? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors demand to accost before the manuscript can proceed. Make certain you focus on what isfundamental for the current study. In other words, it's not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the "side by side footstep" in the study. Small-scale issues are withal of import simply typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might get in the "minor" category:

Missing references (just 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 present p-values differently)
Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors

Some journals take a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments most the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that yous'd want the editors to consider earlier sharing your feedback with the authors, such equally concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Whatsoever serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you lot will disclose whatsoever potentially competing interests, and mention whether y'all're willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Practice not utilize this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will non exist passed along to the authors. If yous're not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If yous are reviewing for a journal that does not offering a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial role directly with your concerns.

Become this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Recollect that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in gild to qualify 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 tin can use to meliorate their study.

If y'all've e'er had your own work reviewed, y'all already know that it's non e'er easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the blazon of review you'd desire to receive if yous were the author. Even if you lot make up one's mind non to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you lot would be comfy signing your proper name to.

In your comments, use phrases like "the authors' discussion of 10" instead of "your discussion of X." This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

Exercise

Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
Exist specific so the authors know what they need to do to amend.
Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don't

Recommend boosted 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—you don't demand to practice their work for them.
Employ the review to promote your ain research or hypotheses.
Focus on typos and grammer. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
Submit your review without proofreading information technology and checking everything i more time.

Earlier and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in listen the guidelines in a higher place, how do you put your thoughts into words? Hither 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 think they have read any of the literature on this topic."

✓ Later on

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

✗ Before

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

✓ After

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

✗ Earlier

"It's obvious that this type of experiment should accept been included. I take no idea why the authors didn't apply it. This is a big fault."

✓ After

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

Suggested Language for Catchy Situations

You might find yourself in a state of affairs where yous're not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful mode. Here is some suggested language for mutual issues you lot might experience.

What yous think: The manuscript is fatally flawed.
What you could say: "The written report does non appear to be audio" or "the authors have missed something crucial".

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

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

What you retrieve: The writing is terrible.
What you could say: "The authors should revise the language to improve readability."

What yous retrieve: The authors have over-interpreted the findings.
What you lot could say: "The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], yet, the data does non fully support this conclusion. Specifically…"

What does a expert review expect like?

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

Time to Submit the Review!

Exist sure you lot plow in your report on fourth dimension. Need an extension? Tell the periodical so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might demand to contact other reviewers or notify the writer about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

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

Related Resources

How To How to Choose the Periodical That's Right for Your Report

There's a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a periodical that will help your study achieve its audience, while reflecting your values equally a researcher…

Read more
How To How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

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

Read more
How To How to Report Statistics

Ensure ceremoniousness and rigor, avert flexibility and above all never manipulate results In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the heart of…

Read more

watersfavind91.blogspot.com

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