- Look at the manuscript as a whole
. General comprehension of the manuscript
. Language/style/grammar
. Structure
. Level of enthusiasm
- Is the Abstract included?
. Is it a real summary of the paper?
. Does it include the key results?
. Does it contain unnecessary information?
. Journals set a limit for the number of words, is the abstract too long?
When you first receive a manuscript for review, it’s important to look at the manuscript as a whole. Think about the originality of the research, the novelty, and importance to the field. What is your general impression of the manuscript? You should also look at the overall use of language, style, and grammar, and the structure of the manuscript. How enthusiastic do you feel about the manuscript at this stage? Note your general first impressions and any concerns that you have identified at this stage. Remember when you are commenting on this, as with all aspects of the manuscript you are reviewing, try to avoid making personal remarks about the author.
Next, move on to the Abstract. Check first that an abstract is included, and then check that the Abstract provides an accurate summary of the manuscript, including the aims, the methods, the key results, and the relevance of the study. The Abstract should be concise, and should not contain unnecessary information or information that cannot stand alone. Another point to note is length; the Abstract should not be overly long. A good Abstract usually ranges between 150-200 words, although this does vary across journals and disciplines.
- Is it effective, clear, and well organized?
- Does it really introduce and put into perspective what follows?
- Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate citations if necessary
- Be as specific as possible when giving feedback
. Don’t just write “the authors have done a poor job”
You are now ready to move on to the main components of the manuscript itself, starting with the Introduction.
In the Introduction, the author explains the rationale behind the work. An effective Introduction should identify the purpose of the work or the hypothesis, and set it within the broader research context. The Introduction puts the rest of the paper into perspective. Often, authors can find it difficult to be concise with their Introduction, and can end up including too much historical context, or repeating large parts of the rest of the paper. A good structure is the key to a clear and well-organized Introduction. You can help the authors to improve the Introduction by encouraging them to better structure their text, or to delete any unnecessary material. You can also point the authors to appropriate citations. As with all comments to the authors, be as specific as possible when giving your feedback.
- Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same outcomes?
- Is the description of new methodology complete and accurate?
- Did the authors include proper references to previously published methodology?
- Is the sample size large enough and was it selected in an appropriate way?
- Was the data collected in accordance with accepted practice?
- Could or should the authors have included supplementary material?
The next component of the manuscript to consider is the Methodology. The Methodology should address two key areas: data collection and data analysis. The Methodology allows readers to judge whether or not the results obtained are valid. The reason why a particular method was used is also important since this can impact the result.
One of the critical aspects of a Methodology is that it should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate the experiments. As a reviewer, you need to consider whether or not this is the case. Check that the Methodology is fully explained, including the research design, data sources, and procedures. This is particularly important when a new method is being discussed. Also, has the author included references to previously published methodology relevant to the study?
Another important issue relates to the relevance of the Methodology to the study. For example, is the sample size large enough for the study, and was it selected in an appropriate way? The author should discuss factors or variables relating to the Methodology that may affect the results. Also, does the author specify whether or not the data was collected in accordance with accepted practice? Finally, if you think additional supplementary material needs to be included to support the Methodology section, you should specify this in your comments.
- Suggest improvements in the way data is shown
- Comment on general logic and on justification of interpretations and conclusions
- Comment on the number of figures, tables, and schemes
- Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend
The next stage in your review is to assess the Results and the Discussion. Many journals have separate sections for the Results and the Discussion, but some journals combine these sections. It’s important that the author follows the journal style.
Let’s look at the Results section first. The aim of this section is to report the results without any type of subjective interpretation. The author should clearly present a summary of the results obtained. You should ask yourself: Do the expected results occur, and have all relevant data been included? Do I have any questions about the data presented? You could also suggest improvements in the way data is shown, for example, in presentation and style and the number and quality of figures and tables used by the author.
Next, let’s consider the Discussion section. In this section, the author is expected to examine, interpret, and qualify the results obtained, and draw any inferences from them. Consider the implications of the results presented, and ask yourself if they have been explained. Are the interpretations presented by the author supported by the author's findings? If you have any questions about how the data have been interpreted, you will need to detail this in your comments.
A good Discussion section relates the findings back to the literature and to the aims of the research, as outlined in the Introduction. From the Discussion, you should be able to assess the contribution made by the study, and decide how far it has helped to resolve the original problem.
For both the Results and Discussion sections, be sure when writing your comments for the author that you are as concise and precise as possible. Remember that some changes are essential and some are “nice to have”. Make sure you indicate this when suggesting changes. Your comments must be evidence-based, as they will be sent on to the authors who can either implement your suggestions or form a rebuttal, arguing why they feel the proposed changes are not required.
Q. Which of the following are appropriate comments from a reviewer?
A. Tables contain too much data and might be confusing for reader.
*B*. Recreate Table A16 to show data for Parameter X and Parameter Y only because there is another table for Parameter Z.
*C*. The sample size needs to be doubled to adequately prove the research hypothesis.
D. Authors have selected a very small sample for the study, so the study is useless.
*E*. Use different colors for the positive and negative results in Figure 9K to enhance reader comprehension.
Reviewers should be as specific as possible when providing feedback and should avoid making personal remarks about the authors. Additionally, if a figure needs color in order to ensure it is correctly interpreted, reviewers should comment on it.
- List suggested style/grammar changes and other small changes separately
- Suggest additional experiments or analyses
- Make clear the need for changes/updates
- Ask yourself whether the manuscript is worth being published
When reviewing the Results and Discussion sections, consider the overall style. For example, is the Results section well organized? In the Discussion section, does the argument proceed logically? You should also look at the grammar and any other minor issues such as the language. Small changes to grammar can these days be made on the PDF, but as a reviewer, you do not need to copy-edit the manuscript.
Finally, when making your comments on the Results and Discussion sections, you may want to suggest that the author carries out further experiments or analyses. This can be very helpful for the author, but before you suggest these, consider whether they are realistic, and also whether the manuscript should be published at all, even with these changes. The Editor will of course make the final decision on acceptance or rejection, deciding whether or not your suggestions for further analyses should be forwarded to the author.
Additional experiments is a tricky issue. Sometimes reviewers suggest, or demand, additional work that goes beyond the original scope of the study. As a reviewer, you should therefore not ask yourself the question: “How would I design this study?”, but “Did the authors adequately set up their study, and would that study require any extra work?”
- Comment on importance, validity, and generality of conclusions
- Request toning down of unjustified claims and generalizations
- Request removal of redundancies and summaries
- The Abstract, not the Conclusion, summarizes the study
The next component to review is the Conclusion. The purpose of the Conclusion is to assess the implication of the results obtained, and to put these in a broader research context. Once you have identified the author's major findings and conclusions, you should ask yourself if the conclusions are fully supported by the data and the author's analyses, arguments, and interpretation.
When commenting on the Conclusion section, consider the importance and validity of the conclusions that are presented in the manuscript. Sometimes, authors can include unjustified claims or make generalizations that are not supported by the results.
Remember that the Conclusion is neither a Discussion nor a summary; its purpose is to assess the implication of the results obtained. The Abstract summarizes the entire study, and should not be repeated in the Conclusion section.
- Check accuracy, number, and appropriateness of citations
- Comment on tables and figures, and their quality and readability
- Comment on any footnotes
- Assess completeness of legends, headers, and axis labels
- Comment on need for color in figures
- Check presentation consistency
As a final step in the review process, you should now look at the references, tables, and figures.
When checking references, ask yourself if all relevant literature has been cited. The reference list should be appropriately extensive and up-to-date. If there are any obvious gaps in the literature that need to be addressed, or errors, you should flag these. Also, check that the size of the reference list is appropriate for the manuscript length and content, and that there aren’t too many self-citations.
It is important to consider if the tables and figures are necessary. Ask yourself if they add to the quality and depth of the article. When checking tables, comment on their quality and quantity. You may feel that there are too many tables in the manuscript, and some of the tables are not required.
If there are footnotes, it may be better to include this information in the main body of the text, rather than as a footnote to a table. Are the tables easy to understand or overly complicated, and is the size of each table appropriate? When checking figures, comment on whether or not the figures are of high enough quality and easy to understand, or if they need to be redone. Are the legends and axis labels complete and correct? Also, if you think a figure needs color in order to ensure it is correctly interpreted, comment on that. In some cases, authors will use color where it’s not required, so you should comment on this too. Be aware that you, as a reviewer, usually see figures in color in PDFs. It would be good if you could have a look at them in grey tone on screen and comment. Check that the size of the figures is appropriate. If not, should they be reduced, enlarged, or redrawn altogether?
If there are a number of tables and figures in the manuscript, it’s a good idea to check for consistency of presentation across the manuscript, for example, font size and style, legends, and axes.
For Editors | For Reviewers
------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plagiarism detection tool at time of submission | Free access to ScienceDirect All content published by Elsevier Tool using the Scopus database to identify potential reviewers | Free access to ScopusThe world's largest abstract and citation database | Reference-linking in PDF of the manuscript
Now that we have looked at the role of a reviewer, as well as the different components of a manuscript, let’s look at how the process of reviewing a manuscript is made easier.
Elsevier provides a number of tools to help Editors and reviewers with the peer review process. An example for Editors is in the area of plagiarism. When a manuscript is submitted to a journal via the Elsevier Editorial System, it can be checked against almost the entire research published literature. This means plagiarism can be identified at the time of submission, before the manuscript goes through the review process. Editors are also provided with tools to identify potential reviewers for a manuscript.
Elsevier provides support for reviewers in a number of ways. First, all reviewers are provided with free access to ScienceDirect, a repository containing all of Elsevier’s published content. Reviewers are also provided with free access to Scopus, which is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature and quality web sources. Scopus also has helpful tools that can track, analyze, and visualize research.
Additionally, all manuscripts undergoing review have reference-linking in the PDF document, which makes references clickable. This is extremely helpful for reviewers and Editors alike.
- Provides an objective, thorough, and comprehensive report
- Provides well-founded comments for authors
- Gives constructive criticism
- Provides a clear recommendation to the Editor
- Submits the report on time
Let’s consider exactly what is it that makes a good reviewer. The best person to answer this question is a journal Editor.
Our journal Editors are in agreement that first and foremost, a good reviewer provides an objective, thorough, and constructive report in a timely manner. Well-thought out, collegial comments supported by evidence are the basis of an excellent review. Editors also want a clear recommendation on a decision, which should be in agreement with the content of the reviewer report. Ideally, journal Editors should be able to cut and paste the comments from the reviewer report into a document for the author, without having to make edits.
Finally, remember that good reviewers deliver on time, and don’t agree to review a manuscript unless they know they can meet the deadline. Also, when you are invited to review but for whatever reason you cannot accept the invitation, be sure to decline immediately so the Editor is aware and can find a replacement reviewer.
- The peer review process is based on trust
- The scientific publishing enterprise depends largely on the quality and integrity of the reviewers
- Reviewers should write reports in a collegial and constructive manner
- Reviewers should treat all manuscripts in the same manner as they would like their own manuscript to be treated
The role of a reviewer is to provide fair and unbiased comments on the quality and value of an article. The quality of the publication, and the publication speed, depend directly on the thoroughness and promptness of the individual reviewer.
The process of peer review requires transparency, impartiality, confidentiality, and timeliness. The process depends on trust between authors and Editors, and between Editors and reviewers. The quality and integrity of the entire scientific publishing enterprise depends on the quality and integrity of the reviewers, which is why reviewers are at the heart of the scientific publishing process.
When reviewing an article, a reviewer is asked to follow the journal and Editor guidelines, and provide a collegial, constructive report with evidence-based comments.
The reviewer also needs to make a clear recommendation and deliver on time. As a reviewer, it is very important to treat all manuscripts in the same manner as you would like your own manuscript to be treated.