A Constructive Approach to the Challenging Task of Peer Reviewing

A Constructive Approach to the Challenging Task of Peer Reviewing

You accepted an editor’s invitation to review a manuscript squarely in your area—excellent. Now the real work begins. A constructive peer review does far more than approve or reject; it clarifies a study’s contribution, raises the standard of reporting, and helps authors improve their scholarship. This guide offers a step-by-step approach you can use for your first review—and refine for your hundredth.

1) Prepare with purpose

Preparation determines the quality of your judgment. Before opening the manuscript, gather the following:

• Journal profile: scope, aims, readership, article types, and typical methodological expectations.
• Author instructions: structure, word/figure limits, reporting checklists (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE), data and code policies.
• Reviewer guidance: decision categories, evaluation criteria, conflicts of interest (COI) policy, confidentiality rules, timelines.

2) Protect confidentiality and neutrality

Treat the manuscript and related files as confidential. Do not share, cite, or use ideas from the submission. If you need advice (e.g., a stats check), obtain the editor’s permission and disclose any assistance in your confidential comments.

• COI check: Decline if you have financial, personal, or academic conflicts, or if you cannot be impartial.
• Anonymity: Maintain the review model (single/double/open) as instructed; avoid self-identifying remarks.

3) Plan your time: two reading–reflection cycles

High-quality reviews take time. The most reliable workflow includes two passes separated by reflection:

1. First pass (global): Read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion to grasp the claimed contribution; skim methods/results; inspect figures/tables. Note major issues only.
2. Second pass (analytic): Read in full, checking methods, data, analyses, and claims line-by-line. Verify that evidence supports conclusions.

Between passes, let the argument “cool”—many issues crystallise after a break. Allocate time to draft, then revisit your report once more to tighten reasoning and tone.

4) A structured evaluation framework

Use a consistent scaffold so your report is clear to editors and actionable for authors. The table below summarises core questions.

5) How to read like a reviewer

• Introduction: Identify the problem, gap, and precise research questions. Flag scope creep or missing seminal work.
• Methods: Look for enough detail to replicate: sampling, randomisation, blinding, instruments, pre-processing, power calculation, preregistration.
• Results: Prioritise effect sizes, uncertainty, and diagnostic checks over p-value hunting. Seek internal consistency across text, tables, and figures.
• Discussion: Watch for claims that exceed evidence; demand limitations, boundary conditions, and future-work clarity.
• Figures/Tables: Ask, “Can a reader understand this without the text?” Labels, units, and legends must stand alone.

6) Writing the review: structure and tone

Editors prefer a clearly segmented report with concise, referenced points. A reliable outline:

1. Summary (2–5 sentences): State what the manuscript claims and does—not your verdict yet.
2. Contribution & fit: One paragraph on novelty and relevance to the journal’s audience.
3. Major comments: 4–10 numbered items that affect validity, clarity, or interpretability. Each item = issue → evidence → consequence → remedy.
4. Minor comments: Specific, quick fixes: missing citations, figure clarity, wording, typos.
5. Decision recommendation: Choose the journal’s category and, if revision, prioritise top 3–5 changes.

7) What “constructive” looks like

• Specific: “Report allocation concealment (CONSORT item 9).”
• Actionable: “Provide robustness to alternative bandwidths (±5, ±10) in Fig. 4.”
• Balanced: Pair critique with strengths to guide effort and maintain morale.
• Respectful: Target the text, not the authors: avoid sarcasm and ad hominem remarks.

8) Making defensible recommendations

Editors need a clear verdict tied to your analysis. Typical categories:

• Accept (rare on first round): Strong contribution, sound methods, minor edits only.
• Minor revision: Valid study; presentation or small analysis clarifications needed.
• Major revision: Potentially publishable; substantial methodological clarification, added analyses, or reframing required.
• Reject: Out of scope, fatal design flaws, non-reproducible data, or contribution too limited for venue.

When recommending revision, list prioritised tasks and note which are optional. When recommending rejection, acknowledge strengths, diagnose the blockers succinctly, and suggest alternative outlets or redesigns (e.g., preregistered replication, brief report).

9) Ethics, integrity, and sensitive findings

• Misconduct signs: duplicate images, improbable statistics, plagiarism, undisclosed reuse. Alert the editor privately; do not accuse the authors in public comments.
• Human/animal research: Confirm approvals and consent; ensure risks are proportionate and reported.
• Data & code: Encourage sharing per policy; if restricted, request detailed synthetic or redacted materials.

10) Common reviewer pitfalls—and fixes

• Vagueness: Replace generalities (“unclear,” “weak”) with explanations and fixes.
• Scope drift: Don’t require a different study. Ask for necessary analyses; frame “nice-to-have” as optional.
• Hostile tone: Edit for collegial phrasing. Read aloud; remove barbs.
• Unjustified verdict: Tie decision to concrete issues affecting validity or fit.
• Overediting language: Suggest copyediting where needed; focus your effort on scientific content.

11) Templates you can adapt

Opening summary:

This manuscript examines [topic] using [design/data]. The main claim is that [finding], supported by [key analyses]. The work aims to contribute to [literature/field] by [novelty]. Overall, the topic fits the journal’s interest in [scope/readership].

Major comment pattern:

• Issue: The identification strategy assumes parallel trends (p. 9) but does not test them.
• Evidence: Figure 2 suggests divergent pre-trends in years −2 to −1.
• Consequence: Threatens causal interpretation of post-treatment effects.
• Remedy: Add event-study with pre-trend tests and report robustness to alternative specifications.

Decision sentence: I recommend major revision, contingent on addressing items 1–4 (identification, measurement validity, multiple testing, and data availability). Items 5–8 are suggested improvements.

12) Reviewing by study type (quick cues)

• Clinical trials: registration, CONSORT flow, randomisation, allocation concealment, pre-specified outcomes, harms.
• Systematic reviews: PRISMA flow, search strategy, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, heterogeneity, publication bias.
• Observational studies: sampling, confounding control, missing data, sensitivity analyses, causal language discipline.
• Qualitative research: sampling rationale, reflexivity, coding transparency, triangulation, thick description.
• Laboratory/bench: reagent details, replication counts, blinding, instrument calibration, data exclusion rules.
• Computational/ML: dataset provenance, train/val/test splits, leakage checks, baselines, ablations, compute/reporting transparency.

13) Polishing your report

• Be concise: 600–1,200 words typically suffice, unless the manuscript is unusually complex.
• Segment clearly: Use headings (“Major,” “Minor”) and numbering for easy editorial triage.
• Cite exactly: Page/line/figure references reduce back-and-forth.
• Close professionally: Thank the authors for their contribution; restate the one-sentence decision.

14) Example: mini review (illustrative)

Summary: The authors study X using a multi-site design (N=…) and claim Y. The topic is timely and of interest to [journal].

Major comments: (1) Design validity: Clarify randomisation and masking (p. 5); report allocation concealment. (2) Outcome definition: Primary endpoint shifts from preregistration (OSF link) to Section 3; reconcile and justify. (3) Multiplicity: Adjust for multiple secondary outcomes or prioritise a smaller set and move the rest to an appendix. (4) Data access: Provide de-identified dataset and code or explain constraints; at minimum, share synthetic data and full analysis scripts.

Minor comments: Improve Fig. 2 axis labels; standardise abbreviations; correct typos (p. 11: “seperate”).

Decision: Major revision.

15) Growth as a reviewer

Keep a private checklist, maintain model paragraphs for recurring issues, and note journal-specific preferences. Review your own reviews later; ask editors for feedback when available. Over time, you’ll develop domain-specific heuristics while preserving fairness and clarity.

Conclusion: help the editor decide, help the author improve

Peer review works when we prepare carefully, read generously, and argue precisely. Your role is to provide a fair, confidential, and actionable assessment: identify what the manuscript contributes, show where it falls short, and map the fastest route to a stronger paper. With practice, you’ll balance empathy with rigour—serving authors, editors, and the field at once.