Thank
you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without
which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed
journals. Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one
of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Peer Review serves two key
functions:
(1)
Acts as a filter: Ensures research is properly verified before being published
(2)
Improves the quality of the research: Rigorous review by other experts helps to
hone key points and correct inadvertent errors
The
Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only
be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if you
are competent to review the article. Reviewing an article can be quite time
consuming. The time taken to review can vary greatly between disciplines and of
course on article type, but on average, an article will take about 3 hours to
review properly. Will you have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated
in the invitation to conduct a thorough review? If you cannot conduct the
review let the editor know immediately, and if possible advise the editor of
alternative reviewers. A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate
you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow
them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same
department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper
previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection
to the article. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s
invitation for review.
Conducting
the Review
Reviewing
needs to be conducted confidentially, the article you have been asked to review
should not be disclosed to a third party. If you wish to elicit an opinion from
colleagues or students regarding the article you should let the editor know
beforehand. Most editors welcome additional comments, but whoever else is
involved will also need to keep the review process confidential. You should not
attempt to contact the author. Be aware when you submit your review that any
recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the
editor. Depending upon the journal, you will be asked to evaluate the article
on a number of criteria. Some journals provide detailed guidance others do not,
but normally you would be expected to evaluate the article according to the
following:
(1)
Originality
Is
the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it
add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's
standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its
originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think
of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of
papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using
tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the
research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the
editor.
(2)
Structure
Is
the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant)
present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider
each element in turn:
Title:
Does it clearly describe the article?
Abstract:
Does it reflect the content of the article?
Where
graphical abstracts and/or highlights are included, please check the content
and if possible make suggestions for improvements. Follow these links for more
information on External link graphical abstracts and External link highlights.
Introduction:
Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state
the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize
relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings,
if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment,
the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
Method:
Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design
suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information
present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the
procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are
new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the
equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it
clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing
measurements?
Results:
This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in
the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will
need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the
statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise
the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be
included in this section.
Conclusion/Discussion:
Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem
reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations
and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous
theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of
scientific knowledge forward?
Language:
If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it
more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the
English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however.
Finally,
on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables
inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures
describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the
same width, the scales on the axis are logical.
(3)
Previous Research
If
the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work
appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the
references accurate?
(4)
Ethical Issues
Plagiarism:
If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please
let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
Fraud:
It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the
results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
Other
ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained?
Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of
animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the
editor
Communicating
Your Report to the Editor
Once
you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up
your report. As a courtesy, let the editor know if it looks like you might miss
your deadline. Some journals may request that you complete a form, checking
various aspects of the paper, others will request an overview of your remarks.
Either way, it is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the
beginning of your report. This serves the dual purpose of reminding the editor
of the details of the report and also reassuring the author and editor that you
have understood the article. The report should contain the key elements of your
review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary
should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal
remarks or personal details including your name.
Providing
insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your
judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the
reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are
your own opinion or are reflected by the data. When you make a recommendation
regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most
likely uses for classifying the article.
a)
Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
b)
Accept without revision
c)
Accept but needs revision (either major or minor)
In
the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to
the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.