Summary
Great reviews advance science; bad habits derail it. This guide focuses on what not to do when writing a peer review—and offers precise “do instead” fixes. Don’t drag your feet accepting or declining; don’t miss deadlines without warning; don’t submit thin, rushed, or hostile reports; don’t reveal identities or share manuscripts; don’t overstep by rewriting the paper; don’t coerce citations; don’t let bias, rivalry, or ideology shape your verdict; and don’t end with vague recommendations.
Do this instead: respond promptly; plan your reading and notes; provide evidence-based, section-by-section comments; keep a professional tone; disclose conflicts; protect confidentiality (no uploads to external tools without permission); separate “fatal” from “fixable”; give actionable suggestions; and state a clear, decisive recommendation. Use our checklists, model language, and 60-minute review workflow to deliver rigorous, fair, and on-time reports editors will trust.
📖 Full Length (Click to collapse)
What You Should Not Do While Writing a Peer Review (and What to Do Instead)
Editors remember reliable reviewers. Authors remember fair ones. Your goal is to be both. Below is a practical, comprehensive guide that separates common don’ts from specific, actionable do’s so you can avoid the pitfalls that waste editorial time, frustrate authors, and erode trust—while delivering rigorous, constructive reviews on schedule.
0) First Principles
- Confidentiality: A manuscript under review is not public; do not share it or use it for your own work.
- Integrity: Evaluate methods and claims, not people. Evidence beats opinion.
- Service: Your job is to help the editor reach a decision and help the authors improve the work—regardless of outcome.
1) Don’t delay your response to an invitation
Editors are managing tight timelines. A slow “maybe” stalls the process.
2) Don’t accept and then miss the deadline in silence
Editors can accommodate delays—but only if you tell them early.
3) Don’t rush a superficial report
One vague paragraph (“not suitable”) helps no one and risks misjudgment.
- Summary (3–5 sentences)
- Major points (numbered): validity, novelty, methods transparency, statistics, ethics, limitations.
- Minor points: clarity, figures, references, style.
- Recommendation: Reject / Major revision / Minor revision / Accept.
4) Don’t include personal remarks or identifying details
Even in open review, personal commentary (“the author clearly doesn’t understand…”) is unprofessional.
5) Don’t overstep your role by trying to co-author the paper
Excessive rewriting requests hijack authorship and can introduce your biases.
6) Don’t coerce citations to your own work
Recommending irrelevant citations inflates metrics and breaches ethics.
7) Don’t lose objectivity because conclusions conflict with yours
Peer review isn’t a referendum on your worldview.
8) Don’t be harsh, dismissive, or sarcastic
Hostility is unnecessary and counterproductive.
9) Don’t end with a vague recommendation
Editors need a decision, not ambiguity.
10) Don’t ignore conflicts of interest
Undisclosed conflicts (financial, collaborative, competitive) undermine trust.
11) Don’t breach confidentiality
Sharing manuscripts with trainees without permission, uploading to third-party services, or discussing on social media is prohibited.
12) Don’t use generative tools to process confidential text without permission
Many online tools store inputs, creating privacy and IP risks.
13) Don’t nitpick style while ignoring validity
Copyedits can wait; fatal flaws cannot.
14) Don’t punish authors for missing experiments you simply find interesting
“Please run an entirely new study” is rarely appropriate at revision.
15) Don’t rely on memory—anchor comments to the manuscript
“Somewhere the authors say…” wastes time.
16) Don’t let frustration with format bleed into the review
Even if the PDF is poorly formatted, focus first on content.
17) Don’t forget ethics and reporting standards
Missing approvals, consent, registrations, or data access statements are red flags.
18) Don’t conflate “negative results” with “no value”
Well-designed studies with null findings can be important.
19) Don’t forget you are also an author
Today’s reviewer is tomorrow’s submitter. Professional empathy pays dividends.
Model Language You Can Paste
Open: “This manuscript examines [topic]. The question is important and timely. My main concerns relate to [validity/analysis/transparency], summarised below.”
Evidence-based critique: “The inference on p. 7 relies on an assumption of parallel trends not tested in Fig. 2. A placebo test using pre-treatment periods would strengthen the claim.”
Tone for disagreement: “I interpret the data differently: the exploratory subgroup result appears sensitive to the chosen threshold (Table S3). Please report robustness across thresholds or temper the claim.”
Clear recommendation: “Major revision. If the authors (1) preregister or provide a time-stamped analysis plan, (2) address multiplicity, and (3) limit claims to the sampled setting, the manuscript would meet the journal’s standard.”
A 60-Minute Review Workflow (When Time Is Tight)
- 10 min — Skim & scope: title, abstract, figures, conclusions. Note the claim in one sentence.
- 20 min — Methods & analysis deep dive: identify any validity or transparency gaps; mark pages/lines.
- 15 min — Results & discussion: check that claims match evidence; flag overstatement.
- 10 min — Draft structure: summary (5 lines), 3–6 major points (numbered), 3–8 minor points.
- 5 min — Recommendation & polish: choose category; add conditions for revision; tone check; proof and submit.
Ethics Corner: Three Absolute Don’ts
- No scooping: do not use ideas, data, or text from a confidential manuscript in your own work.
- No unauthorized sharing: do not circulate the manuscript to colleagues or trainees unless the editor approves and their names are recorded.
- No data exfiltration: do not upload the manuscript (even snippets) to external “analysis” services that retain content. Keep notes offline.
Checklist: Before You Hit “Submit”
- [ ] I responded promptly to the invitation and disclosed conflicts.
- [ ] My review contains a fair summary, numbered major/minor points, and page/line anchors.
- [ ] Tone is professional; no personal remarks; at least one strength acknowledged.
- [ ] I did not suggest irrelevant self-citations; any recommended citations are essential and explained.
- [ ] I protected confidentiality (no sharing, no uploads).
- [ ] I provided a clear, decisive recommendation with conditions if “revise.”
- [ ] Files and notes with manuscript content will be deleted after decision.
Conclusion
Peer review works when reviewers are timely, rigorous, and fair. The fastest way to become an editor’s go-to reviewer is to avoid the classic missteps: don’t stall, don’t miss deadlines in silence, don’t send thin or hostile reports, don’t breach confidentiality, don’t rewrite the paper for the authors, don’t coerce citations, and don’t waffle at the end. Do communicate early, reason from evidence, keep a civil tone, and make a clear recommendation. That combination improves manuscripts, speeds decisions, and strengthens the credibility of our literature.
Need a journal-ready review template for your lab group? We can tailor the skeleton above to your field and target journal (double-blind, registered reports, clinical trials, or qualitative research).
