Providing helpful reviews in scientific publishing is a crucial task that requires a methodical approach. This guide aims to equip reviewers with a practical framework for crafting effective reviews that genuinely aid authors in enhancing their manuscripts.
The Purpose of Reviewing Papers: Reviewing serves multiple objectives, including improving the quality of research papers, assessing suitability for specific journals, developing critical thinking, contributing to the scientific community, and fulfilling a reciprocal academic duty.
Basic Rules for a Good Review:
It takes time to write a good review so give it at least two full days.
If you feel that you cant review a paper well (conflict of interests or lack of time) then don’t do it...
Always write a detailed and unheated review. Only saying “good” or “bad” or being only positive or extremely aggressive will cause the editor to disregard your review.
The structure of a review- The Sandwich Method: This structured approach to feedback ensures a balanced review.
What to Keep: Start with positive feedback by summarizing the paper and highlighting its strengths—importance of the field, relevance of the questions addressed, methodology, findings, and potential applications.
What to Change: Offer a concise judgment on the paper's overall merit considering the journal's standards and audience.
How to Change It: Specify the necessary changes, distinguishing between minor textual adjustments and significant experimental revisions. Consider the necessity and feasibility of suggested experiments, aiming to enhance the paper's clarity and impact without unnecessary burden.
Being critical does not mean criticizing: Engage with the paper thoughtfully, identifying its contributions and suggesting areas for emphasis or clarification. This constructive mindset focuses on improving the work rather than merely pointing out flaws.
Writing the Review:
First Paragraph - Highlighting the Positives:
This paragraph is where you showcase your understanding of the paper by summarizing its content. It's crucial to acknowledge the significance of the research field, the importance of the questions tackled, the methodology's robustness, and the novelty and relevance of the findings. This section isn't just about affirming that you've read the paper; it's an opportunity to point out its strengths and potential impact, including possible applications. Your objective here is to appreciate the work's contributions while setting a positive tone for the review.
Second Paragraph - Judgement Call:
Here, you make a succinct statement regarding the paper's suitability for publication within the journal's context. Consider the journal's impact factor, its audience, and the significance of the research findings. This part requires a delicate balance; it's about providing a decisive yet thoughtful recommendation that reflects the paper's alignment with the journal's standards and its potential interest to readers.
Third Paragraph - Constructive Criticism:
This section is the crux of your feedback, where you suggest specific improvements. Distinguish between textual revisions, which are generally easier to address, and substantial changes that might require additional experiments. It's important to critically assess whether these significant changes are truly necessary, as they could impose considerable burden on the authors.
My personal rule of thumb is to insist on experiments only if controls are missing or key experiments to prove the central point of the paper and never ask for experiments if they only mean to expand the scope of the paper (more cell lines, more mouse background, more mutant backgrounds, another substrate, purify other mutants etc...). Remember that on the other side of your review is a student/postdoc waiting to finish up their work and move on....
Offer detailed suggestions on how the manuscript can be improved, focusing on enhancing its clarity, validity, and overall contribution to the field. If a textual change can come instead of forcing authors to perform an experiment then suggest this alternative.
This structured approach encourages a comprehensive and balanced review process, blending positive reinforcement with constructive criticism to aid authors in refining their work.
Final Thoughts:
Reviewing is more than a duty; it's an opportunity to foster a supportive and rigorous academic environment. Approach reviews with empathy, aiming to guide authors toward presenting their research in the best possible light.