How To Review a Journal Article in a Professional Manner

How To Review a Journal Article in a Professional Manner

Introduction

Serving as a peer reviewer is one of the most important professional responsibilities in academic and scientific communities. Reviewers help maintain research standards, ensure methodological soundness, promote clarity and accuracy in published work and support editors as they decide what deserves a place in the scholarly record. A constructive and well-structured review can significantly improve a manuscript and guide authors toward publication success. However, reviewing poorly or hastily can delay publication, mislead editors and discourage authors—sometimes unfairly. Learning how to review a journal article in a thoughtful, rigorous and ethical manner is therefore essential.

Whether you are reviewing your first manuscript or seeking to refine your skills, this guide outlines best practices for approaching a review request, evaluating the content of a manuscript and writing a clear, balanced report. Throughout, we also highlight when it may be appropriate to encourage authors to seek external support—for example, from a specialist Manuscript Editing team—before resubmitting revised work.

1. Deciding Whether to Accept a Review Request

The first step in reviewing competently is deciding whether you should accept the assignment. A request does not require an automatic “yes,” and thoughtful consideration is part of your professional duty.

1.1 Assess your expertise

Editors typically send a manuscript’s abstract and sometimes additional information before asking for a review. Read these materials carefully and ask yourself:

• Do I have the subject-matter knowledge needed to judge methods, literature and results?
• Can I evaluate the manuscript fairly without significant gaps in understanding?
• Does the topic fall sufficiently within my area of competency?

If the answer is “no,” it is more helpful to decline and suggest alternative reviewers. Accepting a manuscript outside your expertise risks producing an incomplete or unreliable review.

1.2 Consider potential conflicts of interest

Transparent peer review relies on honesty. If you have a personal, professional or financial connection to the authors or the research, disclose this immediately. Editors will decide whether you can still review, or they may choose someone else. Undisclosed conflicts undermine credibility and violate review ethics.

1.3 Confirm your availability

Reviewing a manuscript thoroughly requires substantial time. Journal deadlines are often firm, and delays can slow publication for months. Before agreeing, ensure that you can complete the review within the specified timeframe. If unsure, decline promptly rather than accepting and later missing the deadline.

2. Understanding Journal Expectations

Each journal has its own reviewing philosophy and detailed instructions outlining how reviewers should evaluate manuscripts. Before beginning your assessment, consult these guidelines carefully. Many journals provide:

• specific evaluation criteria (originality, methodological rigour, clarity of writing, ethical compliance);
• instructions on structuring the report;
• guidance on ethical standards and confidentiality;
• checklists for methodological and reporting quality.

Following journal expectations shows professionalism and helps editors incorporate your review into their decision-making process. If instructions are unclear, contact the editor for clarification.

3. Reading and Evaluating the Manuscript

A professional review usually involves multiple readings, each with a different purpose. Taking breaks between readings allows for deeper reflection and better judgement.

3.1 First reading: general impressions

The initial read-through gives you a sense of clarity, coherence and overall contribution. Ask yourself:

• Is the research question clear and significant?
• Does the manuscript match the journal’s aims and audience?
• Does the writing indicate that the research is competently executed?

If the manuscript suffers from severe language problems or a lack of clarity, note this. You may also suggest that the authors seek professional editing, such as Journal Article Editing, before resubmission.

3.2 Second reading: detailed analysis

During subsequent readings, examine each section critically:

Abstract

Does it accurately summarise aims, methods, main findings and implications without exaggeration?

Introduction

Does it contextualise the study within recent literature and articulate a clear rationale? Are claims supported by evidence?

Methods

Are design, data collection and analysis appropriate and transparent? Can the study be replicated? Are ethical issues addressed?

Results

Are findings presented clearly and objectively? Are tables and figures accurate and consistent with the text?

Discussion

Does the author interpret findings responsibly, acknowledging limitations? Does the discussion relate meaningfully to existing research?

Conclusion

Does it capture the study’s contribution without over-claiming?

References

Are citations complete, current and relevant? Are sources accurately represented?

Throughout this process, note specific issues as they arise. Professional reviewers often annotate a separate document before drafting their formal report.

4. Writing a Clear, Constructive and Ethical Review Report

The review report is the core of your contribution. It should be informative, respectful and structured in a way that helps both editors and authors. A typical report includes the following elements:

4.1 Summary of the manuscript

Begin with a brief, impartial summary of the study. This reassures the editor that you understood the research and provides context for your recommendations.

4.2 Major comments

Identify the most important issues—those that affect the manuscript’s validity, clarity or overall contribution. Major comments may relate to:

• conceptual framing;
• methodological flaws or missing information;
• incorrect or unsupported conclusions;
• ethical concerns;
• insufficient literature engagement.

Offer concrete suggestions. Instead of “The introduction is weak,” say “The introduction would benefit from a clearer link between X and Y, and from citing recent studies such as…”.

4.3 Minor comments

These relate to clarity, style, terminology, formatting or minor errors. Examples include:

• unclear wording in specific paragraphs;
• inconsistent use of terms;
• typos or punctuation errors;
• ambiguous figure labels;
• incorrect reference details.

Authors can often fix these quickly, and your detailed notes will help them polish the paper.

4.4 Recommendation for the editor

Most journals require reviewers to classify a manuscript as:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision;
• reject but encourage resubmission;
• reject.

Offer your recommendation only in the editor-confidential section if the journal requests that separation. Never include discouraging statements for authors that contradict your recommendation to the editor. Maintaining professionalism and trust is essential.

5. Organising Your Review for Maximum Clarity

Numbered comments help editors and authors respond efficiently. They enable authors to address each point directly and assist editors in tracking revisions. A structured review also helps you maintain objectivity and avoid overlooking important issues.

Many reviewers organise their assessments as follows:

• General comments (overall contribution, clarity, ethical considerations)
• Major issues (methodology, results, conceptual framing)
• Minor issues (language clarity, formatting, references)
• Specific line-by-line notes (optional)

Members of editorial boards consistently report that clear, constructive and structured reviews are the most useful.

6. When Language or Structure Hinders Evaluation

Occasionally, a manuscript’s research may be strong, but poor writing prevents fair evaluation. In such cases, reviewers may recommend that authors seek professional support—ideally through reputable academic editing practitioners. Without endorsing specific outcomes, reviewers can suggest that authors consider services such as a professional proofreader to correct grammar, improve clarity and prepare the manuscript for serious academic consideration.

7. Ethical and Professional Standards in Peer Review

Peer review is built on trust and integrity. Reviewers must uphold ethical standards at all times.

7.1 Confidentiality

Unpublished manuscripts must never be shared, quoted or used for personal gain. All content remains confidential unless the journal uses an open-review model.

7.2 Objectivity and fairness

Personal opinions, rivalries or biases must not influence your evaluation. If the manuscript challenges your own research, remain objective and evaluate the work on its merits.

7.3 Respectful communication

Even when a paper has serious flaws, tone matters. Constructive criticism improves scholarship; harsh or dismissive comments discourage authors and undermine professional standards.

7.4 Timeliness

Respect agreed deadlines. Delayed reviews slow academic progress and frustrate authors. If circumstances change, inform the editor immediately.

8. Why Reviewing Matters

High-quality peer review strengthens scholarly communication, improves research quality and supports the professional development of authors and reviewers alike. Reviewing introduces you to new methodologies, emerging debates and diverse writing styles. By analysing others’ work critically, you sharpen your own research and writing skills—benefits that accumulate over time.

For authors whose manuscripts require significant revision, recommend paths forward. In some cases, suggesting that a writer engage Manuscript Editing before resubmission can ensure the research receives the fair evaluation it deserves.

Conclusion

Reviewing a journal article in a professional manner means balancing thoroughness, fairness, clarity and respect. It involves deciding responsibly whether to accept a review request, following journal expectations, assessing research with rigour, writing a constructive report and upholding ethical standards. Peer review is both a service and a privilege; approached thoughtfully, it strengthens the academic record and contributes to meaningful scientific and scholarly advancement.