Interested in writing a peer review? The basics require enough academic training. Some do not have the time, some do not have the budget. Here in this article, we are focusing on the primary concerns addressing a thorough peer review. It’s indeed a small group of edits that you need to make and the entire workflow falls in place. Analysis and useful delivery are the two primary concerns of conducting a good peer review.
Upon receiving a paper for a peer review, try to apply 3 forms of reading techniques concentrating on a different element each time. If you are concentrating on the introductory part for review, audit the body and the conclusion separately. Each time you concentrate on a separate section, classify your comments as a major or a minor flaw. Major flaws require time to explain themselves and with correct citations.
As you start reading a paper, get hold of an impression of the content and its aim. Then comes the peer review. Start reviewing it thoroughly. Take notes as you proceed. Before you read the entire content make sure the paper is within the scope of the journal. Well if it has been given for review, it is unlikely that the scope would be off-limits.
While you try answering questions it helps you to understand the motive and think about the mission of the journal. The mission of a peer review is to achieve an understanding of what you go through.
If you start your peer review with an outline it helps authors and editors to follow a proper track. It helps get your comments observations and footnotes organized. The concept of an inverted pyramid highlights the information that’s of primary concern.
Start with the most talked about part of the journal right at the top, followed by details and examples in the center. Try adding additional points at the very bottom.
After you are done with the first reading attempt, mirror the article by writing it down in your own words. This may sound tedious, but do not miss out on the details. If you start missing on the details in your first understanding, your conscious loosens. This tells much about the reader.
Detailed observation in the first reading while conducting a peer review expresses the interpretation of the aim and novelty of the research. It’s up to the author or the editor to agree with your analysis. If they disagree with your comments, understand it is not your fault.
Also read : Dealing by way of Peer Pressure
When you are performing a peer review, flaws are natural to occur. Your 1st reading should focus on fatal flaws. Forget minor or major flaws. A fatal flaw stops the review process dead in its tracks. You may find no interest further. The process may seem methodically dead. For example, an entire section might be missing examples, examples of particular content may be written about another content, or if your luck is too bad, the write up may be utterly unreadable.
Do not forget to describe all of these flaws in your review. Take courage, for instance. Depending on the genre you are given, you will also have an option to reserve or reject. You can reject the content if you find the journal unreadable. There’s no shame.
Areas Of Improvement In A Peer Review
Start your pyramid with a summary of the research and the overall impression you gain. As a result, you can complete the 1st part of your review after the 3 readings in your own words. Summarize what the report tries to claim. Here the editor gets an impression of how well are your interpretation skills.
Where you think issues can be demarcated it’s best to particularize and notify the editor in the form of major and minor issues while conducting a peer review. This is because each section you come across drive to talk about the biggest issues. Follow the systematic rhythm and figure by figure make claims of what other improvements can be brought into action.
Make sure you do not miss numbering specific pages while reviewing, lines, and sections. In other words, Impart the exact knowledge you’re trying to pour to the authors and editors.
Minor issues can have details on presentation, missing references, technical clarifications, spelling grammar, and phrasing issues. Technical clarification and references should be highlighted primarily when you bring minor flaws. Grammar and phrasing issues along with presentation skills should complete your review at the end.
Try highlighting major differences in your and others’ perspectives. Jort the strengths and weaknesses. For example, while you suggest examples, keep the comprehension as a decal message for the editors. makes sure you end it with a recommended course of action.
Also read: 13 Best Reading Website For Beginners
Need For A Fourth Reading
The scientific nuts and bolts still can be missed if you concentrate only on the bigger faults. Reading the paper in a chronological order raises questions in the need of the hour.
The need for research and its relevance has to be present in the introduction of the abstract, followed by the pyramid, and only then a peer review can be complete.
Above all, the journal should target the main questions appropriately, presentation of results logically, and clearly by the data provided. Figures should be fully described, make sure the conclusions are in line with the questions posed in the introduction.
Any mismatch can be a form of question pointing to a lack of connection between the motive and the output. As a reviewer take charge and spot the wild goose on the chase.
Too many comments on the writing and the presentation will only consume time, making your peer review boring. Make sure your reviews are to the point, short, and explained well. Instead of pointing out, “this is badly written” you can suggest any changes that will make the work more promising and tightly reasonable. The flow of paragraphs can be one flaw. Too many uses of acronyms can be pointed as a concern.
Comment To The Editor – Confidential
Towards the end of your peer review, your manuscript may have a section for some confidential comments. You can utilize this area, delete concerns on the submission, and the fact that you want to consider your feedback before sharing it with the authors. Your feedback may include any form of ethical guidelines on the quality of language used to put down a peer review.
Serious issues if notified should be immediately raised with the journal. Any potential competing interests can be notified. If you wish to look for the revised version of the manuscript you can please a request in the section. Remember the confidential segment is not to criticize the manuscript.
If you are unsure about the confidential you can simply leave it blank or read the review instructions to check examples of confidential comments before submitting your review.
In the absence of a confidential section take charge and write to the editorial office directly with any concerns that bother the submission of your peer review.
To make it acceptable make sure your review is well authenticated. Justify recommendations with concrete evidence and specific examples instead of only being a critic of the manuscript. Make sure you act acceptable at times. If you like some parts of it, don’t forget to praise it.
This might be the only chance to get read the manuscript. Any improvements that can lead the position of the manuscript to better than expected do not forget to specify them. As a reviewer, it’s important to be respectful. Your comments will be read by the authors as well. Do not lose your professionalism and get too involved in the juggling words.