How to Begin an Essay for a Peer Review Journal

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you exit out? And how should the review exist formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer study.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report then information technology'south piece of cake for the editors and author to follow. This will as well help you keep your comments organized.

Recollect about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important data at the top, followed by details and examples in the middle, and any boosted points at the very lesser.

Here'south how your outline might look:

i. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how yous interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript'due south strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your "take-home" message for the editors. Cease this section with your recommended grade of activity.

ii. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It'due south helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major bug and one for minor problems. Within each section, you tin talk about the biggest issues start or go systematically figure-by-effigy or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are piece of cake to follow (this will as well make it easier for the authors to answer to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and tabular array numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what yous're talking about.

Major vs. minor bug

What's the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make certain you focus on what isfundamental for the current study. In other words, information technology'southward not helpful to recommend additional work that would exist considered the "next pace" in the study. Pocket-size issues are nonetheless important just typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Hither are some examples of what would might go in the "minor" category:

Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also exist a major issue)
Technical clarifications (east.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
Information presentation (e.chiliad., the authors should present p-values differently)
Typos, spelling, grammer, and phrasing bug

three. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Apply this space to mention concerns about the submission that you'd want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns near ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should exist raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disembalm any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you lot're willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Practise not use this infinite to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed forth to the authors. If yous're not sure what should get in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal beginning earlier submitting your review. If you lot are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is difficult. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Retrieve that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would demand to do in society to authorize for publication. The point is not to nitpick every slice of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and disquisitional feedback that the authors can use to amend their report.

If y'all've ever had your ain work reviewed, yous already know that it's not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the gilt rule: Write the type of review yous'd want to receive if you were the writer. Even if yous decide not to identify yourself in the review, you lot should write comments that y'all would be comfy signing your name to.

In your comments, utilise phrases like "the authors' word of X" instead of "your give-and-take of 10." This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for constructive feedback

Exercise

Justify your recommendation with concrete testify and specific examples.
Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
Be thorough. This might be the simply time y'all read the manuscript.
Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
Remember to say what y'all liked about the manuscript!

Don't

Recommend additional experiments or unnecessary elements that are out of telescopic for the study or for the journal criteria.
Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you lot don't need to do their work for them.
Utilize the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
Focus on typos and grammer. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, only mention this in your comments.
Submit your review without proofreading information technology and checking everything ane more fourth dimension.

Earlier and Later on: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how practice you lot put your thoughts into words? Hither are some sample "before" and "after" reviewer comments

✗ Before

"The authors announced to accept no idea what they are talking about. I don't remember they take read any of the literature on this topic."

✓ After

"The report fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such equally Darwin et al."

✗ Earlier

"The writing is so bad, information technology is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish information technology."

✓ Afterward

"While the study appears to be sound, the linguistic communication is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the menstruum and readability of the text."

✗ Earlier

"It's obvious that this type of experiment should accept been included. I have no thought why the authors didn't employ it. This is a large fault."

✓ Subsequently

"The authors are off to a skilful start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [blazon of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods."

Suggested Linguistic communication for Tricky Situations

You might notice yourself in a situation where yous're not certain how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a effective and respectful way. Here is some suggested linguistic communication for mutual issues yous might experience.

What you think: The manuscript is fatally flawed.
What you could say: "The study does non announced to be sound" or "the authors take missed something crucial".

What yous call up: Y'all don't completely understand the manuscript.
What you could say: "The authors should analyze the post-obit sections to avert confusion…"

What yous recollect: The technical details don't make sense.
What you could say: "The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied."

What you think: The writing is terrible.
What y'all could say: "The authors should revise the linguistic communication to improve readability."

What you lot think: The authors have over-interpreted the findings.
What you could say: "The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], even so, the data does not fully support this decision. Specifically…"

What does a skillful review await like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Enquiry to see how other reviewers write upwards their reports and requite constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you plough in your written report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to await. If y'all need a lot of extra fourth dimension, the periodical might demand to contact other reviewers or notify the author almost the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You'll be more than probable to be asked to review again if you provide loftier-quality feedback and if yous turn in the review on time. Specially if it'southward your first review for a periodical, it'south important to show that y'all are reliable. Prove yourself one time and you'll get asked to review once again!

Related Resource

How To How to Choose the Journal That's Correct for Your Study

There's a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study achieve its audience, while reflecting your values every bit a researcher…

Read more
How To How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The give-and-take section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what tin can be learned from your…

Read more
How To How to Report Statistics

Ensure appropriateness and rigor, avoid flexibility and in a higher place all never manipulate results In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the heart of…

Read more

bradleyfixered1988.blogspot.com

Source: https://plos.org/resource/how-to-write-a-peer-review/