There is a lot to process when taking on a peer review role. Here is a broad overview of the elements that can help you do a good job.
When invited to review, check the abstract to see if it matches your expertise. Respond quickly to accept or decline, as delays can slow the review process.
Keep manuscript content confidential, as you would expect for your own work. Disclose any conflicts of interest, such as similar research you have done or prior reviews for other journals. It is unethical to agree to review a manuscript for personal gain.
Keep feedback relevant to the study’s aims and scope. If you’re unclear of the scope, editorial policy, presentation, or submission requirements, speak to the editor or read the journal’s Author Guidelines.
Your review should ultimately help the author improve the paper. Even if your recommendation is rejection, you should provide some constructive feedback for the author to utilize.
Carefully analyzing and commenting on a manuscript can take a considerable amount of time. Make sure you have enough time available to complete your review.
Structure your comments by numbering them to ensure the editor and author(s) clearly understand your comments. You can also divide them into major and minor issues to help authors prioritize corrections. Keep comments to authors separate from the confidential ones to editors. But make sure your comments to authors correspond to your assessment on the confidential review and checklists.
If you’re reviewing a paper that’s in English but wasn’t written by a native speaker, focus on content clarity and meaning rather than language fluency, highlighting only errors that alter understanding.
The conclusion will give you a good idea whether the research falls within your expertise and is suitable for you to review.
Editors find it useful if you comment on the number of replicates, controls, and statistical analyses. Strong statistical evidence is crucial to determining whether the outcome is robust.
If a manuscript is particularly novel or provides an update to existing research, acknowledge this in your feedback to the author.