From Author To Reviewer

What is the peer review process?

Peer review is the process by which scientific papers get published. As part of this process authors submit a manuscript to their chosen journal; the editor will then ask relevant researchers from across the world to review it and see whether it should be accepted for publication.

The reviewers’ job is to look through the scientific work completed, the presentation of results and the legitimacy of conclusions drawn. From this, they can either decide to reject the paper, suggest minor/major revisions (with comments), or accept the paper in its current form (very rare!!). Reviewers will then give detailed feedback to the editor who will make the final decision.

If a paper is given minor or major revisions, the reviewers will have the opportunity to review the manuscript again after changes have been made to decide if it is now ready for publication.

Authors might complain about reviewers (Reviewer #2 has caused many a broken heart!), but this is an important process in ensuring the quality of published work. I have written about the importance of using reviewer comments to improve your paper before and now it is time to understand the process from the other side.

How do I decide whether to do the review?

Once you start publishing, you will get emails about reviewing upcoming manuscripts. There are a few things to consider before deciding whether to accept.

The first thing is to look through the title and the abstract to check if the paper aligns with your expertise and skillset. Make sure that you understand the topic of the paper and the techniques being used. Ensure that you will be able to fairly and accurately review the work completed.

You should also look at the deadline for the review and check that you have capacity to complete this work. It is really unhelpful for editors if you accept and then can’t get it done in time!!

It is also important to recognise that being a reviewer is a key part of the process. One lecturer in our department told me she tries to review two papers for each one that she publishes. This way she has reviewed as many papers as she has asked for reviewing in return. Whilst you might not have time for this many, I think this is a great approach to the cyclical nature of publications.

How do I review a paper?

Reviewing a paper is a big undertaking and everyone does it differently.

I read through the paper in its entirety first to get the overall message. I then go through it again, in more detail, noting down anything that I think seems confusing or incorrect. When I have completed this review, I pull together any common themes from my notes and highlight these as major comments in my review. This could be a lack of references to the literature throughout or an incorrect methodology. I will then list any other comments as minor and include the line number they refer to. I then read through these comments to decide on my overall verdict for the editor. I will try to justify why I think this should or shouldn’t be accepted for publication, in as much detail as possible, so that the authors get meaningful feedback.

Think about the reviews that you have received and what you found helpful. I try to be as specific as possible, as I have had a few unhelpfully vague responses from Reviewer #2 in the past!!

Ultimately, being able to review upcoming work is an exciting progression of your research career. But it also comes with responsibility, meaning it is important that you take the time to get it right. This process can seem overwhelming when you first start reviewing, so it is good to chat with your supervisor or a more experienced researcher to make sure you are understanding what is needed.

And now that you know the other side, spare a thought for the dreaded Reviewer #2!!

You may also like...