38. "How Do I Review A Manuscript?"
- Bianca Blanch
- Nov 20, 2020
- 5 min read
When I was first invited to peer-review a manuscript, I was elated but had no idea how to properly review the article. My boss kindly took me through their process, which is the inspiration for this week's post.
My Experience of Reviewing A Manuscript
One of the stages to mark your academic progress is when you are asked to peer review a manuscript. It is normal to feel some imposter syndrome. Some of the questions going through my head included:
'Who am I to review this manuscript?'
'What if I review it wrong and give a glowing review to bad science'
'What if I trash the next Nobel prize winning scientist?'
The answer to all of these questions is, it doesn't matter.
You have been chosen because you are a scientist who has published. This fact alone gives you the authority to assess your colleagues work and whether it is worthy of publication. You have been critiquing your colleagues work for your entire career. Now, you are just doing it before it is published.
For the other two questions, you are not the sole reviewer so your opinion will be one of many. Just have a logical reason for your conclusion. An editor will then read your comments and decide on the manuscripts fate. You know what the outcome may be: accept, reject with minor revision or reject outright.
The Lessons on How To Review A Manuscript
If you have a method to critique articles, go with your own strategy. Then look at my suggestions below. And decide if you want to add any of these steps into your own method.
1. Print the manuscript
The world is going paperless, and I support this. But I find the only way to edit/review manuscripts is to print them out so I can write down all my ideas and questions.
2. Read the manuscript beginning to end
Read the manuscript like you would any other article, but with more care. Your comments will actually change the manuscript.
As you are reading it, write down any thoughts you have about it, especially if you think something is missing or unclear. Write down the thought at the point in the manuscript where you thought it. Don't be afraid to go back and forth between sections to comment on something that doesn't flow, or is inconsistent with something later on.
My philosophy is:
If you have a question, write it down.
If something is unclear, comment on what is unclear.
If you want more information, write down what's missing.
If graphs/figures cannot be interpreted alone (without reading the text) then comment on how the authors can improve it.
More specific questions for each section include:
Introduction:
Have they sufficiently provided background for why they did this study?
Is the aim clear? Is this study progressing knowledge in that area?
Have they cited relevant studies?
Methods:
Are the methods sound?
Can you think of any bias that has been introduced by the method?
Have they reduced the impact of this bias through their method?
Is the statistical analysis approach correct?
Will the method answer the aim?
Results:
Do they have a descriptives table to describe the cohort? Are all the relevant characteristics recorded in the table? If not, why is it missing?
Are all graphs and tables in line with the written text?
Do the graphs/tables make sense without reading the text?
Do the results make sense?
Discussion/conclusion:
Does the discussion/conclusion follow the results?
Have they acknowledged all of their limitations? Can you think of any others they have missed that might impact on the findings?
Abstract:
Does it capture the most important aspects of the study?
Overall:
What would you do to improve the study?
Do you think it deserves to be published?
Do you have the statistical expertise to review this paper? If not, you can ask the editor to review the statistical approach.
Are there any typos/mistakes?
What is its readability? Would it benefit from an additional edit?
After you have answered all these questions, leave the manuscript for a couple of days.
3. Write your review
Write your review. Open with a paragraph that says something like:
'In [paper title] the authors have explored [summarise their aim, or what they did in the paper]. I liked how the authors ........... However, I do have some questions/comments for the authors to answer:
Then list all your questions/comments etc.
I find this is a good structure as you describe what the authors did, acknowledge the strengths of the paper but also address how it can be improved. That is your aim with reviewing a paper, to improve it.
There is usually no need to write whether you accept/reject the paper in the review. Each journal has a website where you upload your review. Each journal asks what your decision is and gives a myriad of options to consider.
4. Review your review
Once your review is written, revise it to soften the tone.
If you want something revised or added to the manuscript, never say 'can you revise paragraph 3, it is unclear?'
Instead say 'Can the authors revise paragraph 3, it is unclear?'.
Never address the authors directly as it can sound attacking if you ask for multiple changes or clarifications, by using 'the authors' the tone is more neutral.
The more clear and specific your comments are, the easier it is for the authors to address them and decide whether to incorporate them.
Can you combine multiple critiques together? Are all the comments you made relevant to improve the manuscript, or is it more your personal preference? Maybe pick the top 10 comments/questions for the authors to address in the review.
The last rule is, imagine you were receiving this review. Amend as required, don't be a nasty reviewer. The scientists have put a lot of energy, time and thought into this paper so respect that.
When you first start reviewing articles, give yourself some time to read the manuscript and write the review. It is preferable to leave a few days between writing the review and revising it.
5. Submit your review
When you are submitting a manuscript, the journal often asks if you would review the article again if the authors resubmit. So, I save all of my reviews. If I am asked to re-review I can see the full (unedited) version of my review. (I save two versions, the one with all of my thoughts and the edited version that I end back to the journal).
6. Add your review to Publons
Publons is a website that keeps track of all of your peer reviewed submissions. This is especially helpful when you are writing grant applications and need to quantify your research work.
Publons do not record your review. Instead they just record that you did a review for that specific journal.
When you submit your review, many journals ask if you want your review credited to Publons. If they do not ask, then when you get your email from the journal thanking you for your review. Simply forward the email to Publons and they will add it to your profile.
7. Is the review process open or blind?
The research world is moving towards transparency. Open access articles means more people can read the articles. For the reviewing process, it means the public can look up who reviewed the published article, and the details of your review.
Most journals will indicate this when they ask you to be a reviewer, so the choice is yours, whether you still want to review the article knowing your review will be public knowledge.
You can do this, go forth and review!!
What are your key tips for reviewing a manuscript? Do you have any horror or glory stories? Let me know your experience by leaving a comment below or emailing me at AuthenticResearchExperiences@gmail.com
BB
Photo by hannah grace on Unsplash
I will write a new post every Friday about another aspect of the research world. Please email me to subscribe to my blog. AuthenticResearchExperiences@gmail.com
I am also an avid reader of start-up stories, or research a passionate person has embarked upon any topic. Click here if you want some new book recommendations.
Comments