---

Peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific process, ensuring that research is reliable, rigorous, and valuable. Yet, it often comes with a reputation for being harsh, overly critical, or, frankly, downright mean. To be effective without being a jerk, peer review should balance honesty, constructive feedback, and empathy. Here’s a guide to conducting peer review that helps authors improve their work without making them regret submitting in the first place.

7 Tips for Delivering Great Peer Review

1. Start with a Positive Framing

Before diving into critique, start with something positive. Every paper, even those needing significant revision, has aspects worth commending. Acknowledge the hard work that went into the research. Highlight what you found valuable—whether it’s the originality of the idea, the thoroughness of data collection, or the implications of the findings. Starting with positives not only sets a respectful tone but also encourages authors to be open to feedback.

2. Be Specific in Your Feedback

It’s easy to say, “The analysis is flawed,” but this doesn’t help the author understand what to fix. Instead, be specific: “The analysis would be stronger if you used a mixed-effects model to account for subject-level variability.” Provide actionable suggestions, and if possible, offer examples or references. Specific feedback is useful; vague critique is frustrating and unproductive.

3. Don't make it personal

It should go without saying, but focus on the work, not the person. Avoid phrases like, “The authors clearly don’t understand…” or “This is a naive approach.” Instead, frame your critiques in a way that’s professional: “The chosen method may have limitations that the authors could address by considering alternative approaches.” Always treat the authors with the respect you’d expect if the roles were reversed. Remember, they are your colleagues.

4. Ask Questions

Instead of dictating changes, consider phrasing some feedback as questions. This opens a dialogue rather than imposing your views. For example: “Did you consider adjusting for confounder X? It might help clarify the relationship you’re exploring.” Questions can encourage the authors to think critically and see the feedback as collaborative rather than confrontational.

5. Be Empathetic

Remember, behind every manuscript is a person—often one who’s poured months or even years of effort into their work. Criticism is hard to hear, even when it’s constructive. Empathize with the challenges of the research process, and provide feedback that’s meant to uplift, not tear down. If you have to point out major flaws, do so gently, and suggest pathways forward.

6. Don’t Overstep Your Role as a Reviewer

Your role as a reviewer is to evaluate the paper’s merits and provide constructive suggestions, not to rewrite it or enforce your own vision of what it should be. Resist the urge to turn the paper into “your” paper by imposing unnecessary changes. Focus on scientific rigor, clarity, and quality without becoming overbearing. Additionally, remember to review the study that was performed, not the study you think they should have performed. This can be a limitation, but if the study design severely limits interpretability, it is something to flag for the editor rather than expecting the authors to make unfeasible changes.

7. End on a Constructive Note

After detailing areas for improvement, wrap up your review with encouragement. Reinforce the potential you see in the work, and express your hope that your suggestions will help the authors make the paper even stronger. This leaves the authors with a sense of direction and motivation rather than discouragement.

Conclusion

Peer review is about contributing to the advancement of science, not wielding your expertise as a weapon. By providing constructive, specific, and empathetic feedback, you can help improve the quality of research while respecting the efforts of your peers. Being a good reviewer isn’t just about identifying flaws—it’s about doing so in a way that encourages and empowers others to do better.

If the peer reviewers for your own research haven't read this post and reject your manuscript, you can always use Resub to reformat your manuscript for your next target journal. Also, check out our post on formatting your manuscript and writing cover letters to cover all of your bases.

---

---