You Need to Review and Comment on Some Components of an Article
![](https://plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Person-writing-by-laptop_Pixabay_CC0-e1512515354936.jpg)
When y'all write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?
This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer written report.
Review Outline
Use an outline for your reviewer report so it'due south like shooting fish in a barrel for the editors and author to follow. This will as well aid you keep your comments organized.
Think nearly structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most of import information at the peak, followed by details and examples in the center, and any boosted points at the very bottom.
![](https://plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ReviewerCenter_traingle-2-copy.png)
Here's how your outline might look:
1. Summary of the inquiry and your overall impression
In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and volition highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Requite an overview of the manuscript'due south strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your "accept-home" message for the editors. Stop this section with your recommended grade of action.
ii. Word of specific areas for comeback
Information technology'due south helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major bug and one for minor issues. Within each department, y'all can talk virtually the biggest issues starting time or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-past-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also arrive easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or effigy and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you're talking about.
Major vs. small issues
What's the difference between a major and minor outcome? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to accost before the manuscript can go along. Make sure you focus on what isfundamental for the current study. In other words, it's not helpful to recommend additional work that would exist considered the "next step" in the study. Pocket-sized issues are still important but typically will not bear upon the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the "pocket-sized" category:
- Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could as well be a major consequence)
- Technical clarifications (east.g., the authors should analyze how a reagent works)
- Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
- Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing problems
3. Whatsoever other points
Confidential comments for the editors
Some journals have a infinite for reviewers to enter confidential comments well-nigh the manuscript. Employ this space to mention concerns about the submission that yous'd want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or linguistic communication quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal every bit well.
This section is also where yous will disclose whatever potentially competing interests, and mention whether y'all're willing to expect at a revised version of the manuscript.
Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors. If you're not sure what should become in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal start before submitting your review. If yous are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial function straight with your concerns.
Go this outline in a template
Giving Feedback
Giving feedback is hard. Giving constructive feedback tin can be fifty-fifty more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to talk over what the authors would need to do in lodge to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should exist on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors tin apply to improve their study.
If you've ever had your own work reviewed, y'all already know that information technology's non always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the blazon of review y'all'd want to receive if you were the author. Fifty-fifty if you decide non to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that yous would be comfortable signing your proper noun to.
In your comments, utilize phrases like "the authors' word of X" instead of "your discussion of Ten." This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.
General guidelines for effective feedback
![](https://plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Thumb-up_GREEN-e1598388261821.png)
Do
- Justify your recommendation with concrete testify and specific examples.
- Be specific so the authors know what they demand to do to better.
- Be thorough. This might exist the merely time you read the manuscript.
- Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
- Remember to say what y'all liked near the manuscript!
![](https://plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Thumb-DOWN_RED-e1598388156186.png)
Don't
- Recommend additional experiments or unnecessary elements that are out of telescopic for the study or for the journal criteria.
- Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don't need to do their work for them.
- Utilize the review to promote your ain research or hypotheses.
- Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
- Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.
Earlier and After: Sample Reviewer Comments
Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do y'all put your thoughts into words? Hither are some sample "before" and "afterward" reviewer comments
✗ Earlier
"The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking virtually. I don't think they have read whatever of the literature on this topic."
✓ After
"The written report fails to address how the findings chronicle to previous research in this expanse. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such every bit Darwin et al."
✗ Earlier
"The writing is and so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it."
✓ After
"While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors piece of work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text."
✗ Before
"It'due south obvious that this blazon of experiment should accept been included. I accept no idea why the authors didn't use information technology. This is a big fault."
✓ Afterwards
"The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires boosted experiments, especially [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their option of methods."
Suggested Language for Tricky Situations
You might discover yourself in a situation where you're non sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a effective and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.
What you recall: The manuscript is fatally flawed.
What yous could say: "The study does not announced to be sound" or "the authors have missed something crucial".
What y'all think: You don't completely understand the manuscript.
What yous could say: "The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…"
What y'all think: The technical details don't make sense.
What you could say: "The technical details should be expanded and antiseptic to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied."
What you lot remember: The writing is terrible.
What you could say: "The authors should revise the language to better readability."
What you think: The authors have over-interpreted the findings.
What y'all could say: "The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], nonetheless, the data does non fully support this conclusion. Specifically…"
What does a good review expect like?
Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to run across how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.
Time to Submit the Review!
Be certain you turn in your study on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.
Tip: Building a human relationship with an editor
You lot'll exist more likely to be asked to review once more if you provide high-quality feedback and if yous turn in the review on time. Especially if it's your beginning review for a journal, it'due south important to evidence that yous are reliable. Testify yourself once and y'all'll get asked to review over again!
Related Resources
-
How To How to Choose the Journal That'due south Correct for Your Study
There's a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to cull a journal that will assist your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…
Read more than
-
How To How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
The give-and-take section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what tin can be learned from your…
Read more
-
How To How to Report Statistics
Ensure appropriateness and rigor, avert flexibility and above all never dispense results In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the eye of…
Read more
Source: https://plos.org/resource/how-to-write-a-peer-review/
0 Response to "You Need to Review and Comment on Some Components of an Article"
Post a Comment