Preparing for an Effective 

Peer Review

So, What Does It Take to Be a Peer Reviewer?

Idealism is a trait most valued in reviewers, according to Goldbeck-Wood (1998), at the time an associate editor of BMJ. She refers to reviewing as a “thankless” task that offers no compensation and little other reward but requires a commitment of time and effort on the part of the reviewer. It is helpful for reviewers, therefore, to be idealistic about their field and their role in it as they assist in the peer review process.

Another former BMJ editor, Richard Smith (2006), in questioning the peer review process as a former editor of the The BMJ, describes peer reviews ranging from the non-review review where the reviewer essentially doesn’t provide feedback and offers approval of the article to the super detailed review that dissects data, methodology and references in scrupulous detail. Most reviews will fall somewhere in between but our goal is to aim for the latter over the former.

Practical Considerations

In reviewing articles, you need to know about the journal. Some things to consider are basic submission requirements (length, methodologies, format) and the aims and scope of the journal.

Most of this information can be accessed on the home page of the journal website. Here you can review the submission guidelines for the journal. Most editors post this information online so it is easily assessable to authors.

Another good way to get a sense of appropriate articles for the journal is to look at the journal’s website and see if they have articles you can access online. Even abstracts, if that is all that is freely available to you, can give you a good sense of the scope and focus of accepted manuscripts. Sometimes you can also find calls for papers that go into more detail about what they are looking for in soliciting manuscripts for specific issues. Some of this information might duplicate the submissions guidelines but any and all info you can find related to what how the editors present their journal and what actually makes publication can be helpful and instructive.

Often the editor will do a desk review prior to sending the manuscript out to reviewers. They do this to ensure that the manuscript is suitable for the aims of the journal. The editor may do this at a very cursory level or may instead just send it out to a reviewer without reviewing it at all.

Armed with your knowledge about the journal and the basic aims and requirements of the journal, you can then begin conducting the review.

Generally, a review should take two reads. The first is a holistic review that helps you determine if the article merits publication to begin with and the second, if it does merit publication in your opinion, is a more detailed review that provides concrete revisions and advice to help the author improve their manuscript.

Often journals have some kind of digital service where authors upload manuscripts and it is within that manuscript submission system that you will have to conduct the review. Often that might mean accessing a Word document or a pdf of the piece which you can then download, print and/or comment upon.

In addition to the review document itself you will also likely be asked to complete questions and even rankings about the manuscript within the digital submission space. Holistic comments to the editor about the quality and appropriateness of the manuscript may be prompted in the system, in addition to responses about the clarity of the manuscript. Reviewers are also generally asked to then weigh in with their final recommendation of a manuscript and whether it should be published and under what conditions.

While the publication decision is ultimately in the hands of the editor, the reviewer’s feedback and opinion, accompanied by support and clear explanation, is invaluable to the editors’ ultimate decision-making process. In fact, Bakanic, McPhail, and Simon (1987) found that expert peers had the greatest impact on the outcome of a manuscript’s publication status.

The Importance of Deadlines

If you are busy, it is likely better to reject the manuscript up front rather than accept it and not be able to deliver the review in a timely manner. Editors know that peer reviewers often have a heavy schedule of other academic obligations and try to provide you with a decent window of time. You might be given as few as two weeks or somewhere between 4-6 weeks, depending on the publication schedule of the journal.

References

Bakanic, V., McPhail, C., & Simon, R. J. (1987). The manuscript review and decision-making process. American Sociological Review, 631-642.

Goldbeck-Wood, S. (1998). What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? The BMJ invites you to join its peer review process. BMJ, 316, 86.

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182.