How to write a peer review
How to write a peer review
Reviewer Resources > How to read a manuscript as a peer reviewer > How to write a peer review
When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?
Creating a reviewer report
Use an outline for your reviewer report so it is easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.
Here is how your outline might look:
Summary of the research and your overall impression
Highlight key strengths and weaknesses, and provide a clear “take-home” message for the editors. Conclude with your recommended course of action and support feedback with evidence where appropriate.
Remember to write reviews as you would wish to receive them—professional and respectful, even if anonymous. Use neutral phrasing (e.g., “the authors’ discussion of X”) to keep the focus on the manuscript rather than the authors.
Discussion of specific areas for improvement
Organize comments into major and minor issues. Present points clearly—either by priority or systematically (e.g., figure-by-figure). Number each item and cite specific lines, sections, or figures to ensure clarity and facilitate response.
Major vs. minor issues
Major issues are essential points the authors must address for the manuscript to proceed; focus on what is fundamental, not “next-step” work. Examples of major issues could include:
- A faulty study design,
- Missing information about statistical analysis,
- No sample size calculation
- Methodological reporting being incomplete
- Unclear or issues with the statistical analyses
Minor issues are important but do not affect overall conclusions, such as missing references, technical clarifications, data presentation, or typos and phrasing.
Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:
- Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
- Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
- Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
- Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues
Communicating confidential information
To raise concerns in confidence with the journal editor select the confidential comments section in Editorial Manager. These are concerns not intended for authors, such as ethical issues, language quality, or other matters requiring editorial attention. Any feedback that isn’t flagged as confidential goes directly to the editorial office.
General guidelines for effective feedback
Do
- Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
- Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
- Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
- Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
- Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!
Do not
- Recommend additional experiments or unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
- Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you do not need to do their work for them.
- Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
- Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
- Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.
Time to submit the review
Be sure you turn in your report on time. Do you need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If completing your review will require significantly more time, or you foresee a delay, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.
Building a relationship with an editor
You will be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it is your first review for a journal, it is important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again.
Next resources
Open peer review
Final checks and professional considerations
