How to Write Review Comments What You Learn

Page Content

Overview of the Review Report Format

The First Read-Through

First Read Considerations

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

Concluding the Commencement Reading

Rejection Later the First Reading

Before Starting the Second Read-Through

Doing the Second Read-Through

The 2d Read-Through: Department by Section Guidance

How to Structure Your Report

On Presentation and Style

Criticisms & Confidential Comments to Editors

The Recommendation

When Recommending Rejection

Additional Resources

Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper'southward abstract to assist you lot decide whether yous wish to practise the review. Endeavor to respond to invitations promptly - it will preclude delays. Information technology is also of import at this phase to declare any potential Conflict of Involvement.

Overview of the Review Report Format

The construction of the review report varies betwixt journals. Some follow an breezy structure, while others have a more formal approach.

"Number your comments!!!" (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Construction

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you proceeds experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Frequently y'all tin can't run across these until you lot log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it'south worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If in that location are formal guidelines, let them directly the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should await to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

The Outset Read-Through

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the commodity abstract, you lot should already understand the aims, central data and conclusions of the manuscript. If y'all don't, make a note at present that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will aid you form an initial impression of the newspaper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

First Read Considerations

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll assistance you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the enquiry? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does information technology add to the subject field compared with other published cloth?
• Is the newspaper well written? Is the text articulate and like shooting fish in a barrel to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Practise they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, practise they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

While yous should read the whole paper, making the correct selection of what to read commencement tin can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, "Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the writer's own statistical or qualitative prove
• The employ of a discredited method
• Ignoring a procedure that is known to take a strong influence on the surface area under study

If experimental pattern features prominently in the newspaper, first bank check that the methodology is sound - if non, this is probable to be a major flaw.

Y'all might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of command experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the utilise of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative inquiry extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and advisable quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an upshot, it's oft a good idea to look at the information tables, figures or images first. Particularly in science research, it's all virtually the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript volition need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear information tables
• Contradictory data that either are not cocky-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if annihilation, to current understanding - unless potent arguments for such repetition are made

If you discover a major trouble, notation your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

Terminal the First Reading

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of whatsoever major flaws you institute, draft the first 2 paragraphs of your review - the offset summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the piece of work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this typhoon volition all the same assistance you compose your thoughts.

The Beginning Paragraph

This should country the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the newspaper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add together weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, and so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper and so the writer gets a sense of what they've washed well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. And so consider:

• Is the newspaper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Practise the data support the conclusions?

Afterwards drafting these 2 paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, conscientious read through.

Rejection Later on the Starting time Reading

Even if you lot are coming to the stance that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important considering you may find some really positive aspects that can exist communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will likewise make sure that whatsoever initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. Afterwards all, you need the context of the whole paper earlier deciding to pass up. If you nevertheless intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Earlier Starting the 2nd Read-Through

Once the paper has passed your first read and you lot've decided the article is publishable in principle, 1 purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. Of class, you may even so decide to refuse it post-obit a second reading.

The criterion for acceptance is whether the manuscript makes a useful contribution to the noesis base or agreement of the subject field thing. Information technology need not be fully complete inquiry - it may be an acting paper. After all research is an incomplete, on-going projection past its nature. The detailed read-through should accept no more than an hour for the moderately experienced reviewer.

"Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save fourth dimension and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make split up notes
• Endeavour to grouping similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review plan to note straight onto the manuscript, even so try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - information technology helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items over again and also aids those reading your review
• Go along images, graphs and data tables in articulate view - either impress them off or have them in view on a second computer monitor or window
  

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're set up to spend an 60 minutes or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

Doing the 2nd Read-Through

Equally you're reading through the manuscript for a 2nd time, you lot'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the linguistic communication and content.

With regard to the argument'south construction, you lot should place:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or cryptic
• Whatsoever factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the discipline of the paper?
• Does the abstruse provide an attainable summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reverberate the content?
• Is the paper an advisable length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Non every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text's meaning is clear.

Editors say, "If a manuscript has many English language linguistic communication and editing issues, please practise not attempt and fix information technology. If it is too bad, note that in your review and information technology should be upward to the authors to have the manuscript edited."

If the article is hard to empathise, you should have rejected information technology already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the cadre message, see if you lot can advise improvements to gear up the problem:

• Are in that location certain aspects that could be communicated meliorate, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the aforementioned journal afterwards language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper over again once these bug are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend fourth dimension polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make certain that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that touch clarity of significant, and so it'due south important to highlight these. Await to suggest such amendments - information technology's rare for a manuscript to laissez passer review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

The Second Read-Through: Department by Section Guidance

i. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the inquiry aims by demonstrating the demand for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a articulate idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative enquiry. For instance, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in electric current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new enquiry is required. This point is merely valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that propose the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only practice this by referencing recent literature. Manifestly, where older inquiry is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon information technology, and so it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or but confirmatory of well-known outcomes?"

Aims

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, and so the introduction needs improvement.

ii. Materials and Methods

Academic inquiry should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow all-time practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Command experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments
• Sampling

These are used to make certain observed trends are not due to chance and that the aforementioned experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and issue in the same consequence. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are non replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These requite enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same inquiry. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the aforementioned steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to inquire for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to brand sure the data are reliable. If in that location are insufficient information, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether in that location is whatever in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

All-time Practice

During these checks you should continue in mind best do:

• Standard guidelines were followed (eastward.thou. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the written report was non compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practise standards, it'south usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This department should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed past the author:

• They should start past describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• One time described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explicate the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should exist a critical assay of the data nerveless

Discussion should ever, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and talk over the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future inquiry might confirm the findings or accept the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may exist presented equally function of the results and give-and-take, or in a separate department. The conclusions should reverberate upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, but like the aims, should non exist surprising. If the conclusions are not prove-based, information technology's appropriate to inquire for them to exist re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Information Tables

If yous find yourself looking at a piece of data from which y'all cannot discern a story, then yous should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an upshot with titles, labels, statistical note or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case in that location is an fault in information gathering
• The trends you can come across support the newspaper's discussion and conclusions
• At that place are sufficient information. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should likewise check whether images accept been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate just just if authors report on how the image has been edited (due east.g. by highlighting certain parts of an paradigm). Where y'all feel that an paradigm has been edited or manipulated without caption, yous should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your written report.

6. List of References

You will need to bank check referencing for accurateness, capability and residuum.

Accuracy

Where a cited commodity is central to the author's argument, you should bank check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it'southward the editor's role to exhaustively bank check the reference section for accurateness and format.

Adequacy

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the statement poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should exist discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should exist improved - merely don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Residue

Check for a well-balanced listing of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Non over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should exist able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you lot will accept a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Business

If yous find - or already knew of - a very similar newspaper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because information technology is very recent or published in a periodical slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the writer how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own report, so every bit to better differentiate information technology from like research. If so, y'all may ask the writer to discuss their aims and results, or alter their conclusions, in calorie-free of the similar article. Of course, the inquiry similarities may be so peachy that they render the work unoriginal and y'all take no selection but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If yous suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Nigh editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, only when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it tin be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered merely after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, considering a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines encounter COPE'due south Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley'southward All-time Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics.

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

Subsequently the detailed read-through, yous will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, proficient SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will meliorate the paper'due south search engine rankings and volition influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main commodity. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early. This has a major upshot on the impact of a paper, since information technology helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no farther.

So inquire yourself, while the abstruse may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does information technology:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight of import findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting information?

Editors say, "Does the Abstruse highlight the of import findings of the study?"

How to Construction Your Report

If there is a formal study format, remember to follow it. This volition often comprise a range of questions followed by annotate sections. Effort to answer all the questions. They are at that place because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal written report format you could structure your report in iii sections: summary, major bug, minor issues.

Summary

• Requite positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if yous do so. But don't overdo it if you lot will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is virtually and what the findings are
• Endeavour to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current noesis
• Betoken the significance of the work and if information technology is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Bespeak the work's strengths, its quality and abyss
• Land any major flaws or weaknesses and note whatever special considerations. For case, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there whatever major flaws? Land what they are and what the severity of their touch on is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they nowadays strong enough to show their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, attempt to indicate conspicuously what they are
• Are there any major presentational issues? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript construction all clear plenty for you to accurately appraise the work?
• Are there whatever upstanding issues? If you are unsure it may exist better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Small Issues

• Are there places where pregnant is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the right references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are in that location any factual, numerical or unit errors? If and then, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If non, say which are not

On Presentation and Style

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their commodity. Then exist polite, honest and clear. Y'all should also try to exist objective and effective, non subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and then you can exist understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid circuitous or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If y'all have been asked to but comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should bespeak clearly which these are
• Care for the author'southward work the manner you would similar your own to be treated

Criticisms & Confidential Comments to Editors

Nigh journals requite reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors volition want reviewers to state their recommendation - meet the next department - but otherwise this area is all-time reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, indistinguishable publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't come across this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them also.

The Recommendation

Reviewers should check the preferences of private journals as to where they desire review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not desire the recommendation included in any comments to authors, every bit this tin can cause editors difficulty later - run across Section xi for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally exist asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. take, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-pick list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you lot're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could exist improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. Come across Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The writer can then answer to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is near relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What tin can reviewers exercise to assist? "Be articulate in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the newspaper is given an opportunity for revision." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the side by side section, 'When recommending rejection').

When Recommending Rejection

Where manuscripts have serious flaws yous should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, "If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give effective feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the enquiry and non the author. This is an extremely of import part of your job every bit a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Likewise, they won't become feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Call up to requite constructive criticism fifty-fifty if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers amend their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should non be published.

"When the comments seem actually positive, just the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments arrive audio like a great paper." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Additional Resources

Visit our Wiley Writer Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

woodsrinstall1972.blogspot.com

Source: https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html

Bagikan Artikel ini