What Do Journal Editors Want from Peer Reviewers?

What Do Journal Editors Want from Peer Reviewers?

On the surface, editors want what everyone wants: excellent work delivered on time. Underneath, however, the “excellent work” has a specific shape. Editors need reviews that are actionable (they lead to decisions), diagnostic (they identify causes, not just symptoms), fair (they separate taste from standards), and collegial (they help authors improve). This article translates those expectations into a practical workflow you can apply to any manuscript, whether you’re writing your first review or your fiftieth.

1) Reliability first: respond fast, deliver on time

Editors manage tight schedules and many moving parts. The first signal that you’re a valuable reviewer is responsiveness.

• Accept or decline within 48 hours. If you decline, suggest two or three qualified alternatives (with reasons and emails if appropriate).
• Confirm your deadline in your acceptance note. If you foresee a delay, alert the editor early and propose a new specific date.
• Check for conflicts of interest (COIs). Disclose financial, personal, supervisory, or competitive relationships. When in doubt, ask the editor.

2) Know the journal: scope, audience, and policies

Editors want reviews that reflect the journal’s mission. Before reading, scan recent issues and the author guidelines.

• Scope & readership: What problems, methods, and audiences does the journal serve?
• Reporting standards: Does the journal require CONSORT/PRISMA/STROBE/ARRIVE or field-specific checklists? Data/code policies?
• Decision categories: Understand the venue’s taxonomy (accept, minor, major, reject; or accept with editorial changes, revise & resubmit, etc.).

This context keeps your comments aligned with the editor’s evaluation framework.

3) Read deliberately: two passes with reflection

Editors dislike reviews that look hastily written. A dependable method is the two-pass read:

1. Pass 1 – global fit: Read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion. Skim methods, results, and figures. Ask: What is the claimed contribution? Does it suit this journal?
2. Pass 2 – analytic depth: Read fully. For each claim, check whether the evidence and analysis justify it. Note specific pages/figures.

4) Structure your report the way editors process decisions

The editorial office will route your text to authors and to internal systems. A clear structure saves everyone time:

1. Concise summary (3–6 sentences): What the paper asks, does, and finds—neutral tone.
2. Contribution & fit (1 paragraph): Who will care and why this venue is appropriate (or not).
3. Major comments (numbered): Issues that affect validity, clarity, or interpretability. Each item should include issue → evidence (page/figure) → consequence → suggested remedy.
4. Minor comments (bulleted): Clarity, figures, references, small methods clarifications, wording, typos.
5. Decision recommendation: Pick a category and list the top 3–5 priorities the authors must address.

5) Diagnose what matters: originality, methods, analysis, and claims

Editors want you to separate taste from standards and identify the specific reasons a paper should be revised, accepted, or rejected.

6) Be specific and actionable

Editors favour reviews that show authors exactly how to improve. Replace “unclear” with a precise diagnosis and a feasible fix.

• Instead of: “The identification is weak.”
• Write: “Your identification assumes parallel trends (p. 10) but does not test them. Please add an event-study plot with pre-trend coefficients and report placebo tests (Appendix B).”

Always cite page/line/figure numbers so authors and editors can verify your point.

7) Maintain confidentiality and ethical standards

Editors are guardians of integrity. Reviewers must match that standard.

• Confidentiality: Do not share, cite, or use the manuscript or data. If you need specialist input, ask the editor first and disclose any assistance.
• No coercive citations: Never require authors to cite you unless it is directly necessary for context or replication. Provide neutral justifications.
• COIs: Declare any conflicts transparently or recuse yourself.
• Ethics & transparency: Flag missing approvals, consent, data availability statements, or animal welfare details.

8) Tone: firm on standards, generous in spirit

Editors want reviewers who protect quality without discouraging authors. Keep criticism professional and impersonal.

• Target the text, not the team: Prefer “The manuscript does X” over “The authors fail to…”.
• Balance: Pair each major critique with a strength or a path to resolution.
• Clarity over cleverness: Avoid sarcasm or rhetorical questions. State what is needed plainly.

9) Calibrate your recommendation

Editors rely on your verdict but must justify it. Connect your category to your diagnosis:

• Accept / minor revision: Solid contribution; issues are presentational or easily fixable.
• Major revision: Potentially publishable; requires substantial analysis, reframing, or added transparency.
• Reject: Out of scope; fatal design flaws; non-reproducible data; contribution too limited for the venue.

10) A reviewer’s workflow editors appreciate

1. Pre-check (15–30 mins): Scope, COI, journal policies, and recent comparators.
2. First read (60–90 mins): Global understanding; note decisive issues only.
3. Second read (90–120 mins): Deep dive with page/figure citations.
4. Report drafting (60–90 mins): Structured, numbered, polite, evidence-based.
5. Polish (15–20 mins): Tone check; remove hedging/hostility; verify all references to pages/figures.

Time varies by field and length, but the outline remains stable.

11) Templates you can adapt

Opening summary (for the editor and authors):

This manuscript investigates [question] using [data/method]. The central claim is [finding], which would interest [journal readership] because [reason]. The study’s strengths are [A, B]; the main issues concern [C, D].

Major comment pattern:

• Issue: State the problem in one sentence.
• Evidence: Point to page/figure and describe what is missing or inconsistent.
• Consequence: Explain how the issue affects validity or interpretation.
• Remedy: Propose specific tests, clarifications, or restructuring.

Decision sentence: I recommend major revision, conditional on addressing items 1–4 (identification, robustness, outcome definition, data availability). Items 5–7 are suggested improvements.

12) Field-specific cues editors expect reviewers to notice

• Clinical/biomedical: trial registration, allocation concealment, harms reporting, CONSORT diagrams.
• Systematic reviews: PRISMA flow, search strategy transparency, risk-of-bias assessment, publication bias checks.
• Observational studies: confounding control, missing data strategy, sensitivity to model choices, causal language discipline.
• Laboratory sciences: replication counts, blinding, reagent provenance, instrument calibration, exclusion criteria.
• Social sciences/economics: identification strategy, pre-trends, multiple hypothesis correction, external validity limits.
• Computer science/ML: dataset provenance, leakage checks, baseline comparisons, ablations, compute and environmental reporting.

13) Common pitfalls (and how editors wish you’d avoid them)

• Vagueness: “The paper is confusing.” → Specify where and how; propose structure fixes.
• Wish-listing: Demanding a new study rather than improvements to the present one. Distinguish must-do from nice-to-have.
• Bias signalling: Dismissing approaches outside your subfield. Acknowledge legitimate alternatives and evaluate on the paper’s own terms.
• Language policing only: If the science is weak, say why; if the science is strong but prose needs help, recommend professional editing rather than downgrading contribution.
• Unclear recommendation: Editors need a decision category. Do not omit it.

14) Sample mini-review (illustrative)

Summary: The authors examine X using a multi-site dataset (N = …). They claim Y, supported by models A–C. The topic fits the journal’s interest in [scope].

Major comments: (1) Identification: Please test pre-trends (Fig. 2 suggests divergence years −2 to −1). Add an event-study with confidence intervals and placebo treatment dates. (2) Outcome definition: The primary endpoint shifts from preregistration §1.2 to Results §3. Clarify the rationale and report analyses for the preregistered endpoint. (3) Robustness: Add sensitivity to bandwidth ±5/±10 and alternative clustering. (4) Data availability: Provide a de-identified dataset or a synthetic version with full scripts.

Minor comments: Improve axis labels (units), standardise abbreviations, fix typos (p. 11 “seperate”).

Decision: Major revision.

15) Growing into an editor’s “go-to” reviewer

Editors keep mental shortlists. To stay on them, be consistent: accept invitations aligned with your expertise; communicate early; maintain a respectful, evidence-based style; and deliver reports that make decisions easier. Keep a private checklist and reusable text blocks for frequent issues (robustness, identification, figure legibility). Track journal-specific quirks so your advice matches house practice.

Conclusion: the reviewer as partner

What editors want from reviewers is not mysterious: reliability, methodological acuity, field knowledge, ethical conduct, and a constructive voice. A strong review is a compact piece of editorial craft—clear in structure, precise in diagnosis, and generous in guidance. Practised this way, reviewing accelerates sound decisions and lifts the quality of published work. It also sharpens your own scholarship: each careful report teaches you how to argue more cleanly, analyse more rigorously, and write with greater clarity.