Peer review: how
to do it right 10 tips
Johan Shinne share
some expert advice on how to be useful, scientific and professional when
reviewing a journal
1) Being a
professional. It's called peer review for a reason. You, reviewer putative, are
partners. If you do not do it for them, why they should do it for you? It is a
core part of your job as an academic. It shows that you are a part of the
academy and are willing to engage in interactions that make the profession
runs. Reviewing is a great way to offset the literature and a terrific way to
sharpen your own writing.
2) Fun. If this
journal is really bad, suggest rejection but do not get into the house ad
comment. Rejection should be a positive experience for everyone. Do not say
things in a peer review that you would not say to the person's face in the
presentation or in the bar after the conference.
3) Read the
invitation. When you receive an email inviting you to review journal processes, most
journals will provide a link to accept or reject. Do not respond editor with a
long apology about how you want to do it but your cat has kittens and you have
its own paper to do, plus classes to teach and in any case will not be prof von
Juntz at Miskatonic be better? Click. That. Link. Invitations let you know when
it's time. It can also give you specific instructions, so follow it.
4. Be helpful.
The authors suggest ways to address the shortcomings identified. It's the
easiest thing in the world to punch something. Usually it is difficult to suggest
how to fix it. Review more than a suggestion to revise, reject or accept. It
must be meaningful. Should lead author of what is good and what is not so good
as you look. If it is too short, then it probably will not do it. So be polite.
Describe what happened in your thinking. Suggest an alternative approach.
5) Be
scientifically. Your role is scientific colleagues. That's not good in the
sense proofreading editor or decision-making. Do not re-fill the reviews with
editorial issues and typography. If the journal is full of errors, notify the
editor and give examples. Concentrating more on demonstrating the added value
of your scientific knowledge and not so much on the missing comma etc. If as
part of your revision, you think that the journal should be edited in a
professional manner (as sometimes I do with my own), then say so. Warning for
this is that the journal (and indeed review) is an act of communication. If it
is built with so bad that failed in the role of communication, then tell me
that.
6) Timely. There
is no point in complaining about how slow the process of publishing a journal
if you become part of the problem. When you agree to review journal with a
given timeline (unless there are very good reasons), you should stick to it.
Believe it or not, the track editor who is reviewing what and when. We must
balance the natural tendency to provide more reviews to those who do the most,
with the awareness that people do this basically pro bono and have limited
time. So the time period that we provide are designed to be punctual but little
emphasis. Deadlines well. Stay on them.
7) Be realistic.
Be realistic about the work presented, the changes that you suggest, and your
role. You as an observer is part of the process. You do not have the final decision
on the determination of paper. I, as an editor, have it. Sometimes editors
ignore the advice of reviewers (hopefully with good reason). You can, and in
this case involved, in dialogue with the editor about why - ideally this is a
learning opportunity for all. Sometimes this override because the bar set by
the viewer is too high for the journal. Data may not be available, the
suggested paradigm is not appropriate. It's probably useful suggestions for
other journals but each journal, or should be, one main idea.
8) Be empathetic.
Think about the best review you get in guiding a journal forward. Then think of
the worst. Which one do you want average? Then put yourself in the position of
the author of the journal you are reviewing. Where along the scale would review
you fall? What's around emerging and hence make sure that your review
scientific, useful and polite is a good idea.
9) Open. Unless
it is a review for the Journal of Incredible Specialization, specialist and
generalist both have a role to play. Editors, particularly journal general
interest, will try to get a special reviewers and more common. Saying
"this is not my area" is rarely a reason, especially when you have
recently published a journal that is very relevant. Saying "I'm just one
of the authors" as an answer, do not cut too. Editor tried to balance the
review. That's why we asked a number of reviewers. We may want a generalist,
specialist subject, a person with experience in methodology and someone whose
work was criticized. If we ask you, assuming you have a valid and useful role
to play.
10)
Organized. Review, such as paper, is communication. Because it needed
structure and logical flow. It is impossible to criticize the paper for logical
holes, grammar, bad structure, etc. if you own criticism is full of flaws. Make
the concept review your current resume and recreate. Most publishers provide a
brief guide on the preparation of peer reviews on their website. Read and
follow some key principles. At first, give an overview of one or two short
sentences from your review. Then give feedback on the following matters: the
structure of the paper, the quality of data sources and methods of
investigation used, the specific problems of the methods and methodologies used
(yes, there is a difference), the flow of logical arguments (or lack thereof),
and the validity of the conclusions withdrawn.