How to Indicate if a Publication Is Under Review

Page Content

Overview of the Review Written report Format

The First Read-Through

First Read Considerations

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

Terminal the First Reading

Rejection After the Starting time Reading

Before Starting the 2d Read-Through

Doing the Second Read-Through

The 2d Read-Through: Section by Section Guidance

How to Structure Your Report

On Presentation and Manner

Criticisms & Confidential Comments to Editors

The Recommendation

When Recommending Rejection

Boosted Resources

Footstep by step guide to reviewing a manuscript

When y'all receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a re-create of the newspaper'due south abstract to help you make up one's mind whether you wish to do the review. Endeavour to answer to invitations promptly - it volition prevent delays. Information technology is also important at this phase to declare any potential Conflict of Involvement.

Overview of the Review Report Format

The construction of the review study varies between journals. Some follow an informal construction, while others have a more formal approach.

"Number your comments!!!" (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Construction

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'assay of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, equally you gain experience, rely on your ain evolving manner.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more than formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you tin can't meet these until you log in to submit your review. And then when you agree to the work, information technology's worth checking for any periodical-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, permit them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you lot should wait to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

The Showtime Read-Through

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the commodity abstract, you lot should already understand the aims, fundamental data and conclusions of the manuscript. If yous don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to amend those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you course an initial impression of the paper and go a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to take or reject the paper.

First Read Considerations

Continue a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you class your overall impression:

• What is the master question addressed by the research? Is information technology relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and piece of cake to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Exercise they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, exercise they take a substantial case? If non, what would be required to make their case apparent?
• If the newspaper includes tables or figures, what practice they add to the paper? Do they assist understanding or are they superfluous?

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

While you should read the whole newspaper, making the right choice of what to read commencement tin save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, "Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted past the author's ain statistical or qualitative prove
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the surface area under study

If experimental pattern features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is audio - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You lot might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of command experiments
• The precision of process information
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data assay beingness done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative inquiry extends across the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, information technology'south often a good thought to expect at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it'southward all about the data gathered. If at that place are critical flaws in this, it'southward very probable the manuscript volition need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are non self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to electric current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If yous detect a major trouble, note your reasoning and articulate supporting evidence (including citations).

Terminal the First Reading

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the enquiry question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will however assistance y'all compose your thoughts.

The Starting time Paragraph

This should land the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the inquiry and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key letters are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've washed well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the enquiry. So consider:

• Is the paper'southward premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used advisable?
• Practise the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these 2 paragraphs, you should be in a position to determine whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (run across the next department). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, conscientious read through.

Rejection After the First Reading

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with futurity submissions.

A full read-through volition as well make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and off-white. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to decline. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Before Starting the Second Read-Through

In one case the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the commodity is publishable in principle, i purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help ready the manuscript for publication. Of class, you may still decide to decline it following a second reading.

The benchmark for acceptance is whether the manuscript makes a useful contribution to the knowledge base or understanding of the subject field thing. It need non be fully complete research - it may be an interim paper. Later all research is an incomplete, on-going project by its nature. The detailed read-through should take no more than than an hour for the moderately experienced reviewer.

"Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if y'all're going to raise a problem, provide a solution." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Grooming

To salve time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript certificate - make separate notes
• Try to grouping similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in dissever notes - information technology helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps yous discover items once more and likewise aids those reading your review
• Keep images, graphs and information tables in articulate view - either impress them off or have them in view on a 2nd computer monitor or window
  

At present that you accept completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

Doing the 2nd Read-Through

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to continue in mind the statement'due south construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument's construction, you lot should place:

• Whatever places where the meaning is unclear or cryptic
• Whatsoever factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may besides wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reverberate the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the newspaper?
• Practice the keywords accurately reverberate the content?
• Is the paper an advisable length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text's meaning is clear.

Editors say, "If a manuscript has many English language and editing problems, please do not try and set up it. If it is likewise bad, annotation that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the linguistic communication is poor merely y'all understand the core bulletin, see if you can propose improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated meliorate, such every bit parts of the give-and-take?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal afterward language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again in one case these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the enquiry content. Don't spend fourth dimension polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a loftier standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it'due south important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - information technology's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 report of nursing journals plant that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing way (Shattel, et al., 2010).

The Second Read-Through: Section by Department Guidance

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the demand for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the inquiry was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative inquiry. For example, it's impossible to fence that in that location is a disharmonize in current understanding past referencing articles that are 10 years onetime.

Authors may make the instance that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This betoken is simply valid if researchers can indicate to contempo developments in data gathering techniques or to enquiry in indirectly related fields that advise the topic needs revisiting. Conspicuously, authors can but do this by referencing recent literature. Apparently, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the study providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes?"

Aims

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the enquiry aims. By this betoken you should already take a expert impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, and so the introduction needs improvement.

two. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow all-time practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Command experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments
• Sampling

These are used to brand sure observed trends are not due to take a chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the aforementioned effect. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For instance, equipment used or sampling methods should all exist described in detail then that others could follow the aforementioned steps. Where methods are non detailed enough, information technology's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Enquiry

This has enough information points to make sure the information are reliable. If there are insufficient data, information technology might exist appropriate to recommend revision. You should too consider whether there is any in-congenital bias non nullified by the control experiments.

All-time Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.1000. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and condom of all participants in the study was non compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the enquiry fails to accomplish relevant best practice standards, it'south usual to recommend rejection. What's more than, you lot don't then need to read whatever farther.

3. Results and Discussion

This department should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of adept reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should get-go by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can merely be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should exist a critical analysis of the data nerveless

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and propose ways future research might confirm the findings or have the research forward.

four. Conclusions

This section is normally no more a few paragraphs and may exist presented equally part of the results and give-and-take, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reverberate upon the aims - whether they were accomplished or not - and, just like the aims, should not exist surprising. If the conclusions are non evidence-based, it'south appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of data from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an result with titles, labels, statistical annotation or prototype quality.

Where data is clear, you should bank check that:

• The results seem plausible, in example at that place is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's word and conclusions
• In that location are sufficient information. For case, in studies carried out over time are at that place sufficient information points to back up the trends described by the writer?

You should too bank check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be advisable but only if authors study on how the image has been edited (e.chiliad. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where y'all feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

Y'all will demand to check referencing for accurateness, adequacy and rest.

Accuracy

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind unlike subject field areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor'due south office to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

Adequacy

You lot should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are of import parts of the statement poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show like or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may exist an indicator that referencing should exist improved - but don't exist guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, contempo and readily retrievable

Balance

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on cocky-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related piece of work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking upwards every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you lot will have a deep agreement of the paper's content - and you may take some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Business

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may exist considering it is very recent or published in a journal slightly exterior their usual field.

You lot may experience y'all tin propose the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, and so as to better differentiate it from like inquiry. If so, yous may enquire the writer to talk over their aims and results, or alter their conclusions, in light of the like article. Of grade, the research similarities may exist then great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no pick but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can signal out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Business

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot think or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and enquire for guidance.

Most editors accept access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered just subsequently publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may exist necessary.

For detailed guidelines run into COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley'south Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics.

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, y'all volition exist in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and cardinal words are optimized for search purposes. In order to exist effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstruse volition better the paper'due south search engine rankings and volition influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should incorporate the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major issue on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can so lose the reader's interest and undo the do good of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may get no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight of import findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, "Does the Abstruse highlight the important findings of the study?"

How to Construction Your Report

If at that place is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This volition oft incorporate a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If y'all're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, pocket-size issues.

Summary

• Requite positive feedback first. Authors are more probable to read your review if you practice then. Merely don't overdo information technology if you lot volition be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is most and what the findings are
• Endeavour to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current cognition
• Indicate the significance of the piece of work and if information technology is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and abyss
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note whatever special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are existence overlooked

Major Issues

• Are in that location whatever major flaws? Country what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the newspaper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed information technology accordingly?
• If major revisions are required, try to signal clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational issues? Are figures & tables, linguistic communication and manuscript construction all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure information technology may be meliorate to disembalm these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where significant is cryptic? How tin can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are in that location any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

On Presentation and Style

Your review should ultimately help the author amend their article. And then exist polite, honest and articulate. Yous should also try to be objective and effective, non subjective and destructive.

You should too:

• Write clearly and so you tin can exist understood past people whose offset linguistic communication is not English
• Avert complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you lot have been asked to simply comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, yous should indicate conspicuously which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Criticisms & Confidential Comments to Editors

Most journals give reviewers the selection to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this surface area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such equally suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of involvement.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them likewise.

The Recommendation

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In item, deport in listen that some journals volition not desire the recommendation included in whatsoever comments to authors, as this tin can crusade editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You volition normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.one thousand. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a carve up text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending credence, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just requite a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. Run into Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may too choose to land whether you opt in or out of the mail-revision review as well. If recommending revision, land specific changes you feel need to be made. The author tin then reply to each bespeak in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to assist? "Be articulate in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are admittedly critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisiodue north." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and come across the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

When Recommending Rejection

Where manuscripts take serious flaws you lot should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or requite detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, "If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are non detailed or helpful, information technology does not help the editor in making a decision."

In your recommendations for the author, yous should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Proceed the focus on the inquiry and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your task as a reviewer
• Avert making disquisitional confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not sympathise why their manuscript has been rejected. Too, they won't get feedback on how to meliorate their research and information technology could trigger an appeal

Call up to requite constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their piece of work and explains to the editor why you lot felt the manuscript should non exist published.

"When the comments seem actually positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to pass up a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Additional Resources

Visit our Wiley Writer Learning and Preparation Channel for adept advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

frenchcoutiek73.blogspot.com

Source: https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html