How a Peer Review Article Should Be Written

Credit: Aurielaki/Getty

Scientists practise non receive enough peer-review preparation. To amend this situation, a small group of editors and I adult a peer-review workflow to guide reviewers in delivering useful and thorough analyses that can really aid authors to meliorate their papers.

We suggest that y'all perform iii readings of a newspaper, concentrating on a different element each time. At every point, recall to classify your comments as major or minor flaws. Major flaws will demand considerable time to explain or correct.

The first reading is to get an overall impression of the paper and its aims. Have notes as you go. Brand sure the paper is inside the scope of the journal. Information technology's unlikely that it won't be, but answering this question forces you lot to ameliorate understand the enquiry and think about the paper'southward mission: what it's trying to accomplish.

Take item annotation of the parts of the paper that your expertise speaks best to. Editors do not expect you to be an skillful in admittedly every aspect of the newspaper, although they also don't want you to be a novice. Be upfront and honest with the authors and the editor about which scientific aspects y'all will focus on in your review.

After the first reading, attempt to 'mirror' the article by writing down, in detail, your agreement of the science. This tells the authors how y'all — the reader — have interpreted the aims, results and novelty of their research. If they disagree with your analysis, they should, from your comments, be able to understand that this is non your error. Your analysis is a clear bulletin that the authors need to piece of work on how they communicate their intentions.

You might as well observe a fatal flaw during your offset reading. Forget pocket-sized or major flaws: a fatal flaw is one that stops the review process expressionless in its tracks. There's non much point in continuing the process if the method is fatally flawed, if an entire section is missing or if the newspaper is utterly unreadable. Describe all flaws in your review, and submit it. Depending on the journal, you might have the option to 'refuse, only resubmit'. Otherwise, simply reject. At that place's no shame in it!

If you don't find a fatal flaw, continue to the second reading. Think, you lot still demand time, peace and quiet.

The second reading allows you lot to concentrate on the scientific basics and bolts of the research: the method, analysis and conclusions. Call back to distinguish between major and minor issues, and to read the paper in chronological order. Inquire the following questions:

• Practice the Abstract and Introduction clearly identify the need for this research, and its relevance?

• Does the Methodology target the primary question(s) appropriately?

• Are the Results presented conspicuously and logically, and are they justified by the data provided? Are the figures clear and fully described?

• Practice the Conclusions justifiably respond to the master questions posed by the author(due south) in the Introduction?

It is particularly important to ensure that the questions put along in the Introduction are answered properly in the Conclusions. Effort to spot anywhere the paper might start to have you on a wild goose hunt. The newspaper should go out wild geese alone, unless it'due south a submission to an ornithology periodical.

At this bespeak, information technology's a practiced idea to take a few days abroad from the paper to step back from the details for a while.

During the third and final reading, you should concentrate on the writing and presentation. The scientific discipline might be great, merely heavy composition and messy structure might bog downwardly the master message. If you comment on the writing, brand sure you back up your comments. Don't but annotation, "This is badly written." Advise to the authors how to make the story more cohesive and tightly reasoned. Was the newspaper hard to read considering the paragraphs did non catamenia together? Did the authors overflowing the newspaper with confusing acronyms?

You exercise non need to copyedit a newspaper — that is by and large the task of the journal that has asked y'all to review the commodity. But whatsoever suggestions for improving the language more generally will be welcome, and they are an important role of the peer-review process.

You should now take a list of comments and suggestions for a consummate peer review. The total peer-review certificate can comprise the following sections:

1. Introduction: Mirror the article, state your expertise and whether the newspaper is publishable, or whether there are fatal flaws;

two. Major flaws;

3. Modest flaws;

4. Other, lesser suggestions and last comments.

At present, read your review carefully, and preferably aloud: if you stumble when reciting your own text, and then readers will probably exercise the same. Reading it this way will too describe your attention to how your criticisms might sound to the ears of the authors. Ensure that your critiques are constructive and not offensive. Be helpful and not harmful. Sometimes, you should submit a harsh review, simply never a rude i. Call back to adhere always to the "aureate dominion" of peer reviewing (K. A. McPeek, et al. Am. Naturalist 173, E155–E158; 2009): "review for others every bit yous would have others review for you lot".

View our total worksheet here.

This is an article from the Nature Careers Customs, a place for Nature readers to share their professional person experiences and advice. Invitee posts are encouraged. You tin arrive impact with the editor at naturecareerseditor@nature.com.

christensonreeas1974.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06991-0