peer review of essay

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you 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 report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research 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 will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look 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 go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope 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.
• Use the review to promote your own 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.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report 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 relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 15, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

University Writing Program

• Peer Review
• Collaborative Writing
• Writing for Metacognition
• Supporting Multilingual Writers
• Alternatives to Grading
• Making Feedback Matter
• Responding to Multilingual Writers’ Texts
• Model Library

Written by Rebecca Wilbanks

Peer review is a workhorse of the writing classroom, for good reason. Students receive feedback from each other without the need for the instructor to comment on every submission. In commenting on each other’s work, they develop critical judgment that they can bring to bear on their own writing. Working peer review into the schedule requires students to complete a draft ahead of the final deadline and sets the expectation that they will revise. Students benefit from seeing how others executed similar writing tasks. Finally, the skills that students practice during peer review—soliciting, providing, receiving, and responding to feedback—are essential to success in both scholarly and professional contexts. 

 While students often report that they found peer review to be valuable, students and faculty sometimes worry that peer feedback may be inaccurate or unhelpful. These concerns are valid: for peer review to be successful, students must receive clear instructions about what aspects of the text to focus on and training in how to formulate responses to peer drafts. The class must develop a shared sense of standards and a language to articulate them. The good news is that when peer review is supported in these ways, substantial evidence supports peer review’s benefits. With appropriate preparation, Melzer and Bean report that three or more students collectively produce feedback analogous to that of an instructor. Some classes even use a rigorous peer review system to generate grades for assignments . 

 It’s best to put the guidelines for your peer review in writing. These guidelines could take the form of a set of questions for students to respond to, a rubric to fill out (usually the same rubric that will be used to grade the assignment), or instructions for writing a response letter to the writer. Students will also benefit from seeing examples of helpful (and less helpful) feedback comments. You can use these sample comments to push students to provide greater specificity in their feedback (Less helpful: “Nice work. You did a really good job on this assignment.” More helpful: “I really like how you responded to the claims of Author X.”) 

What to Ask of Student Reviewers

As you design the peer review, consider how you will balance these different options: 

• Asking students to identify elements in the text. This approach allows students to check that expected elements of the text are present and legible to the audience. E.g.: Highlight the sentence(s) where the author states their thesis; or, identify the part of the text where the author explains the significance of their findings. In doing so, students practice recognizing the expected components of the genre they are working in, the different forms these components may take, and they help each other spot when a component is missing or underdeveloped.  
• Asking students to record their reactions as a reader. This option harnesses the power of peer review to provide a real audience. Here are some examples of reader-response comments: “Oh, now I see why you brought up [x]; it seems like your point is [y]”; “I’m having trouble with this sentence; I had to go back and read it a couple times”; “I understand this paragraph to be saying [x]…”; “This is a really neat point; I hadn’t thought of making that connection before.” This approach is based on the idea that understanding how one’s writing is coming across to readers and making changes accordingly is an essential part of the revision process.  
• Asking students to make judgments and/ or give advice. Students may evaluate the work with a rubric or be asked to summarize what is working well and what the student should prioritize for revision. This approach requires more training and practice with models to ensure that students and faculty have a shared understanding of how to apply the assessment criteria, and will be more successful as students gain more exposure to the genre they are working in. In these peer review guidelines from an upper-level writing course, you can see how I incorporated identification, reader-response, and evaluation.  

How to Structure a Peer Review Session

• A workshop with the entire class or section. In this case, everyone reads and comments on the same draft(s), often ahead of time. This format allows the instructor to guide the conversation and may be particularly helpful at the beginning of the semester. You may use the workshop format to review a sample assignment from a previous semester as practice before students review each other’s work.  
• As an alternative to having each student read and comment on each draft individually, Melzer and Bean suggest having groups exchange papers with other groups, and collaboratively write responses to each paper.  
• Asynchronous and online. By using the peer review function on Canvas, or online platforms such as Peerceptiv, CPR, or Eli review, instructors can assign peer review as a homework assignment and avoid taking up class time. Applications designed expressly for peer review include features that encourage high quality review; for example, CPR requires students to pass a “calibration test” (in which they give feedback on models that have already been graded by the instructor), while Peerceptiv allows students to rate the quality of peer reviews during the revision process in an anonymous system that awards points for helpful feedback.  

How to Get the Most out of Peer Review

Here are a few other suggestions to make peer review as effective as possible:

• Give students feedback on their feedback. If students are working in class, you can circulate through the different groups, reinforce insightful comments, and ask follow-up questions to get them to add depth or consider new aspects. You can also spot-check peer reviews and highlight examples of good feedback or ways to improve comments in class. Finally, you might ask students what feedback was most helpful during the revision process and recognize reviewers who do especially good work.  
• Be aware that some students may put their energy into editing the paper, focusing on grammar and sentence structure rather than higher-level issues. This is especially likely when English is not the first language of the author being reviewed. Make sure to emphasize that the goal of peer review is to focus on higher-level concerns, and recurring issues of expression that affect readability—not to line-edit. The Sweetland Center for Writing at the University of Michigan has guidelines and evaluation criteria for peer reviews tailored for situations involving multilingual students.  
• To encourage students to make use of the feedback, consider giving students time in class after the peer review to start working on their revisions or make notes about how they will begin.  

Cited and Recommended Sources

• Corbett, Steven J., et al., editors. Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review and Response for the Writing Classroom . First edition, Fountainhead Press, 2014. 
• Corbett, Steven J., and Michelle LaFrance, editors. Student Peer Review and Response: A Critical Sourcebook . Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2018. 
• Double, Kit S., et al. “The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Control Group Studies.” Educational Psychology Review , vol. 32, no. 2, June 2020, pp. 481–509. Springer Link , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3 . 
• Huisman, Bart, et al. “Peer Feedback on Academic Writing: Undergraduate Students’ Peer Feedback Role, Peer Feedback Perceptions and Essay Performance.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , vol. 43, no. 6, Aug. 2018, pp. 955–68. Taylor and Francis+NEJM , https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318 . 
• Lundstrom, Kristi, and Wendy Baker. “To Give Is Better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer’s Own Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing , vol. 18, no. 1, Mar. 2009, pp. 30–43. ScienceDirect , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 . 
• Melzer, Dan, and John C. Bean. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom . 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, 2021, https://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Ideas-Professors-Integrating-Classroom/dp/1119705401 . 
• Price, Edward, et al. “Validity of Peer Grading Using Calibrated Peer Review in a Guided-Inquiry, Conceptual Physics Course.” Physical Review Physics Education Research , vol. 12, no. 2, Dec. 2016, p. 020145. APS , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020145 . 
• Rahimi, Mohammad. “Is Training Student Reviewers Worth Its While? A Study of How Training Influences the Quality of Students’ Feedback and Writing.” Language Teaching Research , vol. 17, no. 1, Jan. 2013, pp. 67–89. SAGE Journals , https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151 . 
• Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing. University of Michigan Sweetland Center for Writing. Accessed 15 Jan. 2023. 
• van den Berg, Ineke, et al. “Designing Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: Analysis of Written and Oral Peer Feedback.” Teaching in Higher Education , vol. 11, no. 2, Apr. 2006, pp. 135–47. srhe.tandfonline.com (Atypon) , https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500527685 . 

Peer Reviews

Use the guidelines below to learn how best to conduct a peer draft review.

For further information see our handout on How to Proofread.

Before you read and while you read the paper

• Find out what the writer is intending to do in the paper (purpose) and what the intended audience is.
• Find out what the writer wants from a reader at this stage.
• Read (or listen) to the entire draft before commenting.

What to include in your critique

• Praise what works well in the draft; point to specific passages.
• Comment on large issues first (Does the draft respond to the assignment? Are important and interesting ideas presented? Is the main point clear and interesting? Is there a clear focus? Is the draft effectively organized? Is the sequence of points logical? Are ideas adequately developed? If appropriate, is the draft convincing in its argument? Is evidence used properly?). Go on to smaller issues later (awkward or confusing sentences, style, grammar, word choice, proofreading).
• Time is limited (for your response and for the author’s revision), so concentrate on the most important ways the draft could be improved.
• Comment on whether the introduction clearly announces the topic and suggests the approach that will be taken; on whether ideas are clear and understandable.
• Be specific in your response (explain where you get stuck, what you don’t understand) and in your suggestions for revision. And as much as you can, explain why you’re making particular suggestions.
• Try describing what you see (or hear) in the paper–what you see as the main point, what you see as the organizational pattern.
• Identify what’s missing, what needs to be explained more fully. Also identify what can be cut.

How to criticize appropriately

• Be honest (but polite and constructive) in your response
• Don’t argue with the author or with other respondents.

Writing Process and Structure

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Getting Started with Your Paper

Interpreting Writing Assignments from Your Courses

Generating Ideas for Your Paper

Creating an Argument

Thesis vs. Purpose Statements

Developing a Thesis Statement

Architecture of Arguments

Working with Sources

Quoting and Paraphrasing Sources

Using Literary Quotations

Citing Sources in Your Paper

Drafting Your Paper

Introductions

Paragraphing

Developing Strategic Transitions

Conclusions

Revising Your Paper

Reverse Outlines

Revising an Argumentative Paper

Revision Strategies for Longer Projects

Finishing Your Paper

Twelve Common Errors: An Editing Checklist

How to Proofread your Paper

Writing Collaboratively

Collaborative and Group Writing

• Peer Review Checklist

Each essay is made up of multiple parts. In order to have a strong essay each part must be logical and effective. In many cases essays will be written with a strong thesis, but the rest of the paper will be lacking; making the paper ineffective. An essay is only as strong as its weakest point.

Using a checklist to complete your review will allow you to rate each of the parts in the paper according to their strength. There are many different peer review checklists, but the one below should be helpful for your assignment.

• Is the thesis clear?
• Does the author use his or her own ideas in the thesis and argument?
• Is the significance of the problem in the paper explained? Is the significance compelling?
• Are the ideas developed logically and thoroughly?
• Does the author use ethos effectively?
• Does the author use pathos effectively?
• Are different viewpoints acknowledged?
• Are objections effectively handled?
• Does the author give adequate explanations about sources used?
• Are the sources well-integrated into the paper, or do they seem to be added in just for the sake of adding sources?
• Is the word choice specific, concrete and interesting?
• Are the sentences clear?
• Is the overall organization of the argument effective?
• Are the transitions between paragraphs smooth?
• Are there any grammatical errors?

Based on the rubric found at: Grading Rubric Template (Word)

• Authored by : J. Indigo Eriksen. Provided by : Blue Ridge Community College. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of checklist. Authored by : Jurgen Appelo. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/hykfe7 . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Peer Review Checklist. Authored by : Robin Parent. Provided by : Utah State University English Department. Project : USU Open CourseWare Initiative. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Table of Contents

Instructor Resources (Access Requires Login)

• Overview of Instructor Resources

An Overview of the Writing Process

• Introduction to the Writing Process
• Introduction to Writing
• Your Role as a Learner
• What is an Essay?
• Reading to Write
• Defining the Writing Process
• Videos: Prewriting Techniques
• Thesis Statements
• Organizing an Essay
• Creating Paragraphs
• Conclusions
• Editing and Proofreading
• Matters of Grammar, Mechanics, and Style
• Comparative Chart of Writing Strategies

Using Sources

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Formatting the Works Cited Page (MLA)
• Citing Paraphrases and Summaries (APA)
• APA Citation Style, 6th edition: General Style Guidelines

Definition Essay

• Definitional Argument Essay
• How to Write a Definition Essay
• Critical Thinking
• Video: Thesis Explained
• Effective Thesis Statements
• Student Sample: Definition Essay

Narrative Essay

• Introduction to Narrative Essay
• Student Sample: Narrative Essay
• "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell
• "Sixty-nine Cents" by Gary Shteyngart
• Video: The Danger of a Single Story
• How to Write an Annotation
• How to Write a Summary
• Writing for Success: Narration

Illustration/Example Essay

• Introduction to Illustration/Example Essay
• "She's Your Basic L.O.L. in N.A.D" by Perri Klass
• "April & Paris" by David Sedaris
• Writing for Success: Illustration/Example
• Student Sample: Illustration/Example Essay

Compare/Contrast Essay

• Introduction to Compare/Contrast Essay
• "Disability" by Nancy Mairs
• "Friending, Ancient or Otherwise" by Alex Wright
• "A South African Storm" by Allison Howard
• Writing for Success: Compare/Contrast
• Student Sample: Compare/Contrast Essay

Cause-and-Effect Essay

• Introduction to Cause-and-Effect Essay
• "Cultural Baggage" by Barbara Ehrenreich
• "Women in Science" by K.C. Cole
• Writing for Success: Cause and Effect
• Student Sample: Cause-and-Effect Essay

Argument Essay

• Introduction to Argument Essay
• Rogerian Argument
• "The Case Against Torture," by Alisa Soloman
• "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin
• How to Write a Summary by Paraphrasing Source Material
• Writing for Success: Argument
• Student Sample: Argument Essay
• Grammar/Mechanics Mini-lessons
• Mini-lesson: Subjects and Verbs, Irregular Verbs, Subject Verb Agreement
• Mini-lesson: Sentence Types
• Mini-lesson: Fragments I
• Mini-lesson: Run-ons and Comma Splices I
• Mini-lesson: Comma Usage
• Mini-lesson: Parallelism
• Mini-lesson: The Apostrophe
• Mini-lesson: Capital Letters
• Grammar Practice - Interactive Quizzes
• De Copia - Demonstration of the Variety of Language
• Style Exercise: Voice

Use of cookies

Lund University uses cookies to ensure that the website functions properly and to improve your experience.

Read more in our cookie policy

• AWELU contents
• Writing at university
• Different kinds of student texts
• Understanding instructions and stylesheets
• Understanding essay/exam questions
• Peer review instructions
• Dealing with feedback
• Checklist for writers
• Research writing resources
• Administrative writing resources
• LU language policy
• Introduction
• What characterises academic writing?
• The heterogeneity of academic writing
• Three-part essays
• IMRaD essays
• How to get started on your response paper
• Student literature review
• Annotated bibliography
• Three versions of the RA
• Examples of specificity within disciplines
• Reviews (review articles and book reviews)
• Popular science writing
• Research posters
• Grant proposals
• Writing for Publication
• Salutations
• Structuring your email
• Direct and indirect approaches
• Useful email phrases
• Language tips for email writers
• Writing memos
• Meeting terminology
• The writing process
• Identifying your audience
• Using invention techniques
• Research question
• Thesis statement
• Developing reading strategies
• Taking notes
• Identifying language resources
• Choosing a writing tool
• Framing the text: Title and reference list
• Structure of the whole text
• Structuring the argument
• Structure of introductions
• Structure within sections of the text
• Structure within paragraphs
• Signposting the structure
• Using sources
• What needs to be revised?
• How to revise
• Many vs. much
• Other quantifiers
• Quantifiers in a table
• Miscellaneous quantifiers
• Adjectives and adverbs
• Capitalisation
• Sentence fragment
• Run-on sentences
• What or which?
• Singular noun phrases connected by "or"
• Singular noun phrases connected by "either/or"
• Connected singular and plural noun phrases
• Noun phrases conjoined by "and"
• Subjects containing "along with", "as well as", and "besides"
• Indefinite pronouns and agreement
• Sums of money and periods of time
• Words that indicate portions
• Uncountable nouns
• Dependent clauses and agreement
• Agreement with the right noun phrase
• Some important exceptions and words of advice
• Atypical nouns
• The major word classes
• The morphology of the major word classes
• Words and phrases
• Elements in the noun phrase
• Classes of nouns
• Determiners
• Elements in the verb phrase
• Classes of main verbs
• Auxiliary verbs
• Primary auxiliary verbs
• Modal auxiliary verbs
• Meanings of modal auxiliaries
• Marginal auxiliary verbs
• Time and tense
• Simple and progressive forms
• The perfect
• Active and passive voice
• Adjective phrases
• Adverb phrases
• Personal pronouns
• Dummy pronouns
• Possessive pronouns
• Interrogative pronouns
• Indefinite pronouns
• Quantifiers
• Prepositions and prepositional phrases
• More on adverbials
• The order of subjects and verbs
• Subject-Verb agreement
• Hyphen and dash
• English spelling rules
• Commonly confused words
• Differences between British and American spelling
• Vocabulary awareness
• Useful words and phrases
• Using abbreviations
• Register types
• Formal vs. informal
• DOs & DON'Ts
• General information on dictionary use
• Online dictionary resources
• What is a corpus?
• Examples of the usefulness of a corpus
• Using the World Wide Web as a corpus
• Online corpus resources
• Different kinds of sources
• The functions of references
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Reference accuracy
• Reference management tools
• Different kinds of reference styles
• Style format
• Elements of the reference list
• Documentary note style
• Writing acknowledgements
• What is academic integrity?
• Academic integrity and writing
• Academic integrity at LU
• Different kinds of plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• About Awelu

• Start here AWELU contents Student writing resources Research writing resources Administrative writing resources LU language policy
• Genres Introduction The Nature of Academic Writing Student writing genres Writing in Academic Genres Writing for Publication Writing for Administrative Purposes
• Writing The writing process Pre-writing stage Writing stage Rewriting stage
• Language Introduction Common problems and how to avoid them Selective mini grammar Coherence Punctuation Spelling Focus on vocabulary Register and style Dictionaries Corpora - resources for writer autonomy References
• Referencing Introduction Different kinds of sources The functions of references How to give references Reference accuracy Reference management tools Using a reference style Quick guides to reference styles Writing acknowledgements
• Academic integrity What is academic integrity? Academic integrity and writing Academic integrity at LU Plagiarism

Peer review

What is peer review.

Peer review is a common activity at university, both among students and among senior researchers. In many undergraduate courses, peer reviewing forms part of the learning process, and papers and chapters by PhD students are scrutinised in departmental research seminars. Although writers might feel intimidated by the idea of submitting their (unfinished) texts to other people, texts usually improve as a result of being questioned and commented on. The task of the peer reviewer is to help the writer sharpen his or her argument and improve his or her texts. Importantly, by reviewing other writers’ texts, peer reviewers also train their own analytical abilities.

Although the principle is the same, peer review among students looks slightly different from the peer-review process carried out before scholarly texts are published in journals, for instance.

Student peer review

Students are often asked to peer review other students' writing. Here, the word peer means another student, usually in the same course, who can be expected to have a similar level of understanding of the general topic dealt with in the text (although the writer will probably have more expert knowledge of the particular aspect dealt with in their text).

• Further down on this page we provide information and tips for student peer reviewers.

Scholarly peer review

When an author has submitted a text to a journal, it will be reviewed by other scholars within the field. Depending on the assessment and comments provided by the peer reviewers, the manuscript will then be either accepted or rejected by the publisher / editor. Articles that are accepted for publication usually have to go through minor or major revisions before being published.

Peer reviewers of scholarly work receive instructions from the publisher outlining what to comment on and how to assess the text. Such instructions usually cover both general aspects of research and presentation and more detailed, journal-specific, preferences.

Reading someone else's text: Student peer reviewing

Student peers reviewing during the writing process can take different forms. In some courses, students work in peer groups and review each other's work-in-progress, for instance, and papers and chapters by PhD students are often scrutinised in departmental research seminars or read and commented upon by assigned readers. Although writers might feel intimidated by the idea of submitting their (unfinished) texts to someone else, texts usually improve as a result of being questioned and commented on.

The task of peer reviewers is to help writers sharpen their arguments and improve their texts. By reviewing other writers’ texts, peer reviewers thereby also train their own analytical abilities. Encountering different ways of structuring a paper, or of presenting facts and arguments, gives the peer reviewer an increased understanding of writing.

The video below presents some fundamental aspects of peer review work at university:

Instructional video from the free online MOOC "Writing in English at University" which was developed at Lund University in 2016.

AWELU peer review guidelines for students

Note that our guidelines are of a general kind and that your teachers may have set instructions covering other aspects:

When you receive feedback from your peers, it is important that you make use of it in a way that helps you develop your text. See here for some advice:

• Dealing with peer review feedback

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

What Is Peer Review and Why Is It Important?

It’s one of the major cornerstones of the academic process and critical to maintaining rigorous quality standards for research papers. Whichever side of the peer review process you’re on, we want to help you understand the steps involved.

This post is part of a series that provides practical information and resources for authors and editors.

Peer review – the evaluation of academic research by other experts in the same field – has been used by the scientific community as a method of ensuring novelty and quality of research for more than 300 years. It is a testament to the power of peer review that a scientific hypothesis or statement presented to the world is largely ignored by the scholarly community unless it is first published in a peer-reviewed journal.

It is also safe to say that peer review is a critical element of the scholarly publication process and one of the major cornerstones of the academic process. It acts as a filter, ensuring that research is properly verified before being published. And it arguably improves the quality of the research, as the rigorous review by like-minded experts helps to refine or emphasise key points and correct inadvertent errors.

Ideally, this process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and in turn reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views.

If you are a researcher, you will come across peer review many times in your career. But not every part of the process might be clear to you yet. So, let’s have a look together!

Types of Peer Review

Peer review comes in many different forms. With single-blind peer review , the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, while double-blind peer review , both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Then, there is open peer review , a term which offers more than one interpretation nowadays.

Open peer review can simply mean that reviewer and author identities are revealed to each other. It can also mean that a journal makes the reviewers’ reports and author replies of published papers publicly available (anonymized or not). The “open” in open peer review can even be a call for participation, where fellow researchers are invited to proactively comment on a freely accessible pre-print article. The latter two options are not yet widely used, but the Open Science movement, which strives for more transparency in scientific publishing, has been giving them a strong push over the last years.

If you are unsure about what kind of peer review a specific journal conducts, check out its instructions for authors and/or their editorial policy on the journal’s home page.

Why Should I Even Review?

To answer that question, many reviewers would probably reply that it simply is their “academic duty” – a natural part of academia, an important mechanism to monitor the quality of published research in their field. This is of course why the peer-review system was developed in the first place – by academia rather than the publishers – but there are also benefits.

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Besides a general interest in the field, reviewing also helps researchers keep up-to-date with the latest developments. They get to know about new research before everyone else does. It might help with their own research and/or stimulate new ideas. On top of that, reviewing builds relationships with prestigious journals and journal editors.

Clearly, reviewing is also crucial for the development of a scientific career, especially in the early stages. Relatively new services like Publons and ORCID Reviewer Recognition can support reviewers in getting credit for their efforts and making their contributions more visible to the wider community.

The Fundamentals of Reviewing

You have received an invitation to review? Before agreeing to do so, there are three pertinent questions you should ask yourself:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
• Do you have time to review the paper?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. of financial or personal nature)?

If you feel like you cannot handle the review for whatever reason, it is okay to decline. If you can think of a colleague who would be well suited for the topic, even better – suggest them to the journal’s editorial office.

But let’s assume that you have accepted the request. Here are some general things to keep in mind:

Please be aware that reviewer reports provide advice for editors to assist them in reaching a decision on a submitted paper. The final decision concerning a manuscript does not lie with you, but ultimately with the editor. It’s your expert guidance that is being sought.

Reviewing also needs to be conducted confidentially . The article you have been asked to review, including supplementary material, must never be disclosed to a third party. In the traditional single- or double-blind peer review process, your own anonymity will also be strictly preserved. Therefore, you should not communicate directly with the authors.

When writing a review, it is important to keep the journal’s guidelines in mind and to work along the building blocks of a manuscript (typically: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references, tables, figures).

After initial receipt of the manuscript, you will be asked to supply your feedback within a specified period (usually 2-4 weeks). If at some point you notice that you are running out of time, get in touch with the editorial office as soon as you can and ask whether an extension is possible.

Some More Advice from a Journal Editor

• Be critical and constructive. An editor will find it easier to overturn very critical, unconstructive comments than to overturn favourable comments.
• Justify and specify all criticisms. Make specific references to the text of the paper (use line numbers!) or to published literature. Vague criticisms are unhelpful.
• Don’t repeat information from the paper , for example, the title and authors names, as this information already appears elsewhere in the review form.
• Check the aims and scope. This will help ensure that your comments are in accordance with journal policy and can be found on its home page.
• Give a clear recommendation . Do not put “I will leave the decision to the editor” in your reply, unless you are genuinely unsure of your recommendation.
• Number your comments. This makes it easy for authors to easily refer to them.
• Be careful not to identify yourself. Check, for example, the file name of your report if you submit it as a Word file.

Sticking to these rules will make the author’s life and that of the editors much easier!

Explore new perspectives on peer review in this collection of blog posts published during Peer Review Week 2021

[Title image by AndreyPopov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as a Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

Taking Libraries into the Future, Part 2: An Interview with Mike Jones and Tomasz Stompor

Embracing diversity, equity and inclusion: social justice and the modern university, taking libraries into the future, part 1: an interview with mark hughes, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

How to perform a peer review

You’ve received or accepted an invitation to review an article. Now the work begins. Here are some guidelines and a step by step guide to help you conduct your peer review. 

General and Ethical Guidelines

Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript

Top Tips for Peer Reviewers

Working with Editors

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

Tips for Reviewing a Clinical Manuscript

Reviewing Registered Reports

Tips for Reviewing Rich Media

Reviewing for Sound Science

Peer Review – Best Practices

“Peer review is broken. But let’s do it as effectively and as conscientiously as possible.” — Rosy Hosking, CommLab

“ A thoughtful, well-presented evaluation of a manuscript, with tangible suggestions for improvement and a recommendation that is supported by the comments, is the most valuable contribution that you can make as a reviewer, and such a review is greatly appreciated by both the authors of the manuscript and the editors of the journal. ” — ACS Reviewer Lab

Criteria for success

A successful peer review:

• Contains a brief summary of the entire manuscript. Show the editors and authors what you think the main claims of the paper are, and your assessment of its impact on the field. What did the authors try to show and what did they try to claim?
• Clearly directs the editor on the path forward. Should this paper be accepted, rejected, or revised?
• Identifies any major (internal inconsistencies, missing data, etc.) concerns, and clearly locates them within the document. Why do you think that the direction specified is correct? What were the issues you identified that led you to that decision?
• Lists (if appropriate — i.e. if you are suggesting revision or acceptance) minor concerns to help the authors make the paper watertight (typographical errors, grammatical errors, missing references, unclear explanations of methodology, etc.).
• Explain how the arguments can be better defended through analysis, experiments, etc.
• Is reasonable within the original manuscript scope ; does not suggest modifications that would require excessive time or expense, or that could instead be addressed by adjusting the manuscript’s claims .

Structure Diagram

A typical peer review is 1-2 pages long. You can divide your content roughly as follows:

Identify your purpose

The purpose of your pre-publication peer review is two-fold:

• Scientific integrity (which can be handled with editorial office assistance)
• Quality of data collection methods and data analysis
• Veracity of conclusions presented in the manuscript
• Determine match between the proposed submission and the journal scope (subject matter and potential impact). For example, a paper that holds significance only for a particular subfield of chemical engineering is not appropriate for a broad multidisciplinary journal. Determining match is usually done in partnership with the editor, who can answer questions of journal scope.

Analyze your audience

The audience for your peer review work is unusual compared to most other kinds of communication you will undertake as a scientist. Your primary audience is the journal editor, who will use your feedback to make a decision to accept or reject the manuscript. Your secondary audience is the author, who will use your suggestions to make improvements to the manuscript. Typically, you will be known to the journal editors, but anonymous to the authors of the manuscript. For this reason, it is important that you balance your review between these two parties.

The editors are most interested in hearing your critical feedback on the science that is presented, and whether there are any claims that need to be adjusted. The editors need to know:

• Your areas of expertise within the manuscript
• The paper’s significance to your particular field

To help you, most journals willhave guidelines for reviewers to follow, which can be found on the journal’s website (e.g., Cell Guidelines ).

The authors are interested in:

• Understanding what aspects of their logic are not easily understood
• Other layers of experimentation or discussion that would be necessary to support claims
• Any additional information they would need to convince you in their arguments

Format Your Document in a Standard Way

Peer review feedback is most easily digested and understood by both editors and authors when it arrives in a clear, logical format. Most commonly the format is (1) Summary, (2) Decision, (3) Major Concerns, and (4) Minor Concerns (see also Structure Diagram above).

There is also often a multiple choice form to “rate” the paper on a number of criteria. This numerical scoring guide may be used by editors to weigh the manuscript against other submissions; think of it mostly as a checklist of topics to cover in your review.

The summary grounds the remainder of your review. You need to demonstrate that you have read and understood the manuscript, which helps the authors understand what other readers are understanding to be the manuscript’s main claims. This is also an opportunity to demonstrate your own expertise and critical thinking, which makes a positive impression on the editors who often may be important people in your field.

It is helpful to use the following guidelines:

• Start with a one-sentence description of the paper’s main point, followed by several sentences summarizing specific important findings that lead to the paper’s logical conclusion.
• Then, highlight the significance of the important findings that were shown in the paper.
• Conclude with the reviewer’s overall opinion of what the manuscript does and does not do well.

Your decision must be clearly stated to aid the interpretation of the rest of your comments (see Criteria for Success). Do this either as part of the concluding sentence in the summary paragraph, or as a separate sentence after the summary. In general, you try to categorize within the following framework:

• Accept with no revisions
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions

Some journals will have specific rules or different wording, so make sure you understand what your options are.

Most reviews also contain the option to provide confidential comments to the editor, which can be used to provide the editor with more detail on the decision. In extreme cases, this can also be where concerns about plagiarism, data manipulation, or other ethical issues can be raised.

The Decision area is also where you can state which aspects of complex manuscripts you feel you have the expertise to comment on.

Major Concerns (where relevant)

Depending on the journal that you are reviewing for, there might be criteria for significance, novelty, industrial relevance, or other field-specific criteria that need to be accounted for in your major concerns. Major concerns, if they are serious, typically lead to decisions that are either “reject” or “accept with major revisions.”

Major concerns include…

• issues with the arguments presented in the paper that are not internally consistent,
• or present arguments that go against significant understanding in the field, without the necessary data to back it up .
• a lack of key experimental or computational data that are vital to justify the claims made in the paper.
• Examples: a study that reports the identity of an unexpected peak in a GC-MS spectrum without accounting for common interferences, or claims pertaining to human health when all the data presented is in a model organism or in vitro .

One of the most important aspects of providing a review with major concerns is your ability to cite resolutions. For example…

• If you think that someone’s argument is going against the laws of thermodynamics, what data would they need to show you to convince you otherwise?
• What types of new statistical analysis would you need to see to believe the claims being made about the clinical trials presented in this work?
• Are there additional control experiments that are needed to show that this catalyst is actually promoting the reaction along the pathway suggested?

Minor Concerns (optional)

Minor concerns are primarily issues that are raised that would improve the clarity of the message, but don’t impact the logic of the argument. Most commonly these are…

• Grammatical errors within the manuscript
• Typographical errors
• Missing references
• Insufficient background or methods information (e.g., an introduction section with only five references)
• Insufficient or possibly extraneous detail
• Unclear or poorly worded explanations (e.g., a paragraph in the discussion section that seems to contradict other parts of the paper)
• Possible options for improving the readability of any graphics (e.g., incorrect labels on a figure)

While minor concerns are not always present in the case of reviews with many major concerns, they are almost always included in the case of manuscripts where the decision is an accept or accept with minor revisions.

Offer revisions that are reasonable and in scope

Think about the feasibility of the experiments you suggest to address your concerns. Are you suggesting 3 years’ more work that could form the basis for a whole other publication? If you are suggesting vast amounts of animal work or sequencing, then are the experiments going to be prohibitively expensive? If the paper would stand without this next layer of experimentation, then think seriously about the real value of these additional experiments. One of the major issues with scientific publishing is the length of time taken to get to the finish line. Don’t muddy the water for fellow authors unnecessarily!

As an alternative to more experiments, does the author need to adjust their claims to fit the extent of their evidence rather than the other way round? If they did that, would this still be a good paper for the journal you are reviewing for?

Structure your comments in a way that makes sense to the audience

Formatting choices:

• Separate each of your concerns clearly with line breaks (or numbering) and organize them in the order they appear in the manuscript.
• Quote directly from the text and bold or italicize relevant phrases to illustrate your points
• Include page and line/paragraph numbers for easy reference.

Style/Concision:

• Keep your comments as brief as possible by simply stating the issue and your suggestion for fixing it in a few sentences or less.

Offer feedback that is constructive and professional

Be unbiased and professional.

Although the identities of the authors are sometimes kept anonymous during the review process (this is rare in chemical and biological research), research communities are typically small and you may try to “guess” who the author is based on the methodology used or the writing style. Regardless, it is important to remain unbiased and professional in your review. Do not assume anything about the paper based on your perception of, for example, the author’s status or the impact their results may have on your own research. If you feel that this might be an issue for you, you must inform the editor that there is a conflict of interest and you should not review this manuscript.

Be polite and diplomatic .

Receiving critical feedback, even when constructive, can be difficult and possibly emotional for the authors. Since you are not anonymous to the editors, being unnecessarily harsh in your feedback will reflect badly on you in the end. Use similar language to what you would use when discussing research at a conference, or when talking with your advisor in a meeting. Manuscript peer review is a good way to practice these “soft” skills which are important yet often neglected in the science community.

Additional resources about effective peer reviewing

• American Chemical Society Reviewer Lab
• Nature.com offers a peer review training course for purchase:
• https://masterclasses.nature.com/courses/205
• http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts/
• http://asapbio.org/six-essential-reads-on-peer-review

This article was written by Mike Orella (MIT Chem E Comm Lab); edited by Mica Smith (MIT Chem E Comm Lab) and Rosy Hosking (Broad Comm Lab)

• Majors & Minors
• About Southwestern
• Library & IT
• Develop Your Career
• Life at Southwestern
• Scholarships/Financial Aid
• Student Organizations
• Study Abroad
• Academic Advising
• Billing & Payments
• mySouthwestern
• Pirate Card
• Registrar & Records
• Resources & Tools
• Safety & Security
• Student Life
• Parents Homepage
• Parent Council
• Rankings & Recognition
• Tactical Plan
• Academic Affairs
• Business Office
• Facilities Management
• Human Resources
• Notable Achievements
• Alumni Home
• Alumni Achievement
• Alumni Calendar
• Alumni Directory
• Class Years
• Local Chapters
• Make a Gift
• SU Ambassadors

Southwestern University announces its 2021–2026 Tactical Plan.

Spurred by her affection for horses, Gabby Guinn ’25 gives back to the community as an intern at the Ride On Center for Kids (ROCK).

Generous gift kicks off fundraising efforts for new athletic complex that will help bring football back to campus for the first time since 1950.

Pirate Athletics launches a new way to elevate the student-athlete experience at Southwestern.

Southwestern’s liberal arts education, wide array of majors and minors, and prime geographic location set students up for future success in the tech industry.

A conversation with Assistant Professor of Sociology Adriana Ponce.

Natalie Davis ’26 awarded with runner-up honors in ASIANetwork’s nationwide essay contest.

Expansive transformation of Mabee Commons honored for outstanding renovation project in national competition.

Lila Milam-Kast ’25 has experienced healing through giving back to her community during an internship at Art Spark Texas.

The Southwestern community will have exclusive access to expanded job resources through Indeed, the world’s #1 job site.

A conversation with Assistant Professor of Chemistry Chelsea Massaro.

Sophia Trifilio ’25, Addison Gifford ’26, and Wafa Bhayani ’25 to continue their education around the world in 2024.

Nineteen students participate in seven thought-provoking projects funded by King Creativity Fund grants.

Jihan Schepmann ’24 will attend UT Southwestern this fall to begin organic chemistry Ph.D. program.

Relive moments from the commencement ceremony for the Southwestern University Class of 2024. 

Recent political science graduate earns Critical Language Scholarship to study Russian in Kyrgyzstan and Fulbright grant to teach English in Spain.

Alumni couple challenge fellow Southwestern graduates and friends to match their $5 million commitment before the end of Thrive: The Campaign for Southwestern.

Andrea Abell ’26 and Fernando Cruz-Rivera ’26 each awarded $30,000 for their junior and senior years by The Sumners Foundation.

Alumnus debuts performance to complete masters of music composition program at Texas State University.

Peer Review

Benefits of peer review, how does devoting class time to peer review help student writing.

• Peer review  builds student investment  in writing and  helps students understand the relationship between their writing and their coursework  in ways that undergraduates sometimes overlook. It forces students to engage with writing and encourages the self-reflexivity that fosters critical thinking skills. Students become lifelong thinkers and writers who learn to question their own work, values, and engagement instead of simply responding well to a prompt.
• Making the writing process more collaborative through peer review  gives students opportunities to learn from one another  and to  think carefully about the role of writing in the course at hand . The  goals of the assignment are clarified.  By assessing whether or not individual student examples meet the requirements, students are forced to focus on goals instead of getting distracted entirely by grammar and mechanics or by their own anxiety.
• Studies have shown that  even strong writers benefit from the process of peer review : students report that they learn as much or more from identifying and articulating weaknesses in a peer’s paper as from incorporating peers’ feedback into their own work.
• Peer review  provides students with contemporary models of disciplinary writing . Because students often learn writing skills in English class, at least in high school, their models for “good writing” might be entirely general or ill-suited to your class. Peer review gives them a communal space to explore writing in the disciplines.
• Peer review  allows students to clarify their own ideas  as they explain them to classmates and as they formulate questions about their classmates’ writing. This is helpful to writers at all skill levels, in all classes, and at all stages of the writing process.
• Peer review  provides professional experience for students  having their writing reviewed. Peer review is the process by which professionals in the field publish, it’s how managers and co-workers provide feedback in the workplace, and it’s a skill with practical application.
• Last but not least, peer review  minimizes last minute drafting  and may cut down on common lower-level writing errors.

Cho, Kwangsu, Christian D. Schunn, and Davida Charney. “Commenting on Writing: Typology and Perceived Helpfulness of Comments from Novice Peer Reviewers and Subject Matter Experts.”  Written Communication  23.3 (2006): 260-294.

Graff, Nelson. “Approaching Authentic Peer Review.”  The English Journal  95.5 (2009): 81-89.

Nilson, Linda B. “Improving Student Peer Feedback.”  College Teaching  51.1 (2003): 34-38.

“Using Peer Review to Help Students Improve Writing.”    The Teaching Center .  Washington University in St. Louis. n.d. Web. 1 June 2014.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 2 September 2022.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, frequently asked questions about peer review.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymised) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymised comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymised) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymised) review – where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymised – does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimises potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymise everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimise back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarise the argument in your own words

Summarising the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organised. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticised, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the ‘compliment sandwich’, where you ‘sandwich’ your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarised or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilising rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication.

For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project – provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well regarded.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field.

It acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2022, September 02). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 15 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/peer-reviews/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is a double-blind study | introduction & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, data cleaning | a guide with examples & steps.

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024

How to Master Data Management in Research

25th April 2024 27th April 2024

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

• Writing Center
• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Video Introduction
• Become a Writing Assistant
• All Writers
• Graduate Students
• ELL Students
• Campus and Community
• Testimonials
• Encouraging Writing Center Use
• Incentives and Requirements
• Open Educational Resources
• How We Help
• Get to Know Us
• Conversation Partners Program
• Workshop Series
• Professors Talk Writing
• Computer Lab
• Starting a Writing Center
• A Note to Instructors
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Research Proposal
• Argument Essay
• Rhetorical Analysis

Argument Essay Peer Review

As a writer . . .  

Step 1 : Underline your thesis statement.  

Step 2: Include answers to the following two questions at the top of your draft:  

• What questions do you have for your reviewer? 
• List two concerns you have about your argument essay.  

   Step 3: When you receive your peer's feedback, read and consider it carefully.  

Remember: you are not bound to accept everything your reader suggests; if you believe that the response comes as a result of misunderstanding your intentions, be sure that those intentions are clear. The problem can be either with the reader or the writer!  

As a reviewer . . .  

As you begin writing your peer review, remember that your peer will benefit more from constructive criticism than vague praise. A comment like "I got confused here" or "I saw your point clearly here" is more useful than "It looks okay to me." Point out ways your classmates can improve their work.  

Step 1: Read your peer’s draft two times.  

Read the draft once to get an overview of the paper, and a second time to provide constructive criticism for the author to use when revising the draft.  

Step 2: Answer the following questions:  

• What is the writer’s thesis statement? (Copy it here.)  
• Is the thesis clear and well-supported?  
• Is the paper overly general, or does the writer make specific claims and then back them up using logical reasoning and/or researched evidence?  
• Does the writing “flow” smoothly? Note sentences or sections where flow could  be improved.  
• Is the essay reasonably free of sentence and spelling errors?  
• Remember the MEAL plan – does each paragraph follow this basic structure?  [M – Main idea;  E – Evidence; A – Analysis; L – Link]  
• Are all references to outside materials (direct quotations as well as very specific information that had to have come from reading others’ work) cited, both within the essay and on a Works Cited page?  
• Has the writer used at least three scholarly sources (no Wikipedia, personal blogs, etc.)?   

Step 3: Address your peer’s questions and concerns included at the top of the draft.    

Step 4: Write a short paragraph about what the writer does especially well.    

Step 5: Write a short paragraph about what you think the writer should do to improve the draft.    

Your suggestions will be the most useful part of peer review for your classmates, so focus more of your time on these paragraphs; they will count for more of your peer review grade than the yes or no responses.

Hints for peer review:  

• Point out the strengths in the essay.  
• Address the larger issues first.  
• Make specific suggestions for improvement.  
• Be tactful but be candid and direct.  
• Don’t be afraid to disagree with another reviewer.  
• Make and receive comments in a useful way.  
• Remember peer review is not an editing service; you should not focus on sentence-level errors like punctuation and spelling.    

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Report a Concern
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

Peer Review Examples (300 Key Positive, Negative Phrases)

By Status.net Editorial Team on February 4, 2024 — 18 minutes to read

Peer review is a process that helps you evaluate your work and that of others. It can be a valuable tool in ensuring the quality and credibility of any project or piece of research. Engaging in peer review lets you take a fresh look at something you may have become familiar with. You’ll provide constructive criticism to your peers and receive the same in return, allowing everyone to learn and grow.

Finding the right words to provide meaningful feedback can be challenging. This article provides positive and negative phrases to help you conduct more effective peer reviews.

Crafting Positive Feedback

Praising professionalism.

• Your punctuality is exceptional.
• You always manage to stay focused under pressure.
• I appreciate your respect for deadlines.
• Your attention to detail is outstanding.
• You exhibit great organizational skills.
• Your dedication to the task at hand is commendable.
• I love your professionalism in handling all situations.
• Your ability to maintain a positive attitude is inspiring.
• Your commitment to the project shows in the results.
• I value your ability to think critically and come up with solutions.

Acknowledging Skills

• Your technical expertise has greatly contributed to our team’s success.
• Your creative problem-solving skills are impressive.
• You have an exceptional way of explaining complex ideas.
• I admire your ability to adapt to change quickly.
• Your presentation skills are top-notch.
• You have a unique flair for motivating others.
• Your negotiation skills have led to wonderful outcomes.
• Your skillful project management ensured smooth progress.
• Your research skills have produced invaluable findings.
• Your knack for diplomacy has fostered great relationships.

Encouraging Teamwork

• Your ability to collaborate effectively is evident.
• You consistently go above and beyond to help your teammates.
• I appreciate your eagerness to support others.
• You always bring out the best in your team members.
• You have a gift for uniting people in pursuit of a goal.
• Your clear communication makes collaboration a breeze.
• You excel in creating a nurturing atmosphere for the team.
• Your leadership qualities are incredibly valuable to our team.
• I admire your respectful attitude towards team members.
• You have a knack for creating a supportive and inclusive environment.

Highlighting Achievements

• Your sales performance this quarter has been phenomenal.
• Your cost-saving initiatives have positively impacted the budget.
• Your customer satisfaction ratings have reached new heights.
• Your successful marketing campaign has driven impressive results.
• You’ve shown a strong improvement in meeting your performance goals.
• Your efforts have led to a significant increase in our online presence.
• The success of the event can be traced back to your careful planning.
• Your project was executed with precision and efficiency.
• Your innovative product ideas have provided a competitive edge.
• You’ve made great strides in strengthening our company culture.

Formulating Constructive Criticism

Addressing areas for improvement.

When providing constructive criticism, try to be specific in your comments and avoid generalizing. Here are 30 example phrases:

• You might consider revising this sentence for clarity.
• This section could benefit from more detailed explanations.
• It appears there may be a discrepancy in your data.
• This paragraph might need more support from the literature.
• I suggest reorganizing this section to improve coherence.
• The introduction can be strengthened by adding context.
• There may be some inconsistencies that need to be resolved.
• This hypothesis needs clearer justification.
• The methodology could benefit from additional details.
• The conclusion may need a stronger synthesis of the findings.
• You might want to consider adding examples to illustrate your point.
• Some of the terminology used here could be clarified.
• It would be helpful to see more information on your sources.
• A summary might help tie this section together.
• You may want to consider rephrasing this question.
• An elaboration on your methods might help the reader understand your approach.
• This image could be clearer if it were larger or had labels.
• Try breaking down this complex idea into smaller parts.
• You may want to revisit your tone to ensure consistency.
• The transitions between topics could be smoother.
• Consider adding citations to support your argument.
• The tables and figures could benefit from clearer explanations.
• It might be helpful to revisit your formatting for better readability.
• This discussion would benefit from additional perspectives.
• You may want to address any logical gaps in your argument.
• The literature review might benefit from a more critical analysis.
• You might want to expand on this point to strengthen your case.
• The presentation of your results could be more organized.
• It would be helpful if you elaborated on this connection in your analysis.
• A more in-depth conclusion may better tie your ideas together.

Offering Specific Recommendations

• You could revise this sentence to say…
• To make this section more detailed, consider discussing…
• To address the data discrepancy, double-check the data at this point.
• You could add citations from these articles to strengthen your point.
• To improve coherence, you could move this paragraph to…
• To add context, consider mentioning…
• To resolve these inconsistencies, check…
• To justify your hypothesis, provide evidence from…
• To add detail to your methodology, describe…
• To synthesize your findings in the conclusion, mention…
• To illustrate your point, consider giving an example of…
• To clarify terminology, you could define…
• To provide more information on sources, list…
• To create a summary, touch upon these key points.
• To rephrase this question, try asking…
• To expand upon your methods, discuss…
• To make this image clearer, increase its size or add labels for…
• To break down this complex idea, consider explaining each part like…
• To maintain a consistent tone, avoid using…
• To smooth transitions between topics, use phrases such as…
• To support your argument, cite sources like…
• To explain tables and figures, add captions with…
• To improve readability, use formatting elements like headings, bullet points, etc.
• To include additional perspectives in your discussion, mention…
• To address logical gaps, provide reasoning for…
• To create a more critical analysis in your literature review, critique…
• To expand on this point, add details about…
• To present your results more organized, use subheadings, tables, or graphs.
• To elaborate on connections in your analysis, show how x relates to y by…
• To provide a more in-depth conclusion, tie together the major findings by…

Highlighting Positive Aspects

When offering constructive criticism, maintaining a friendly and positive tone is important. Encourage improvement by highlighting the positive aspects of the work. For example:

• Great job on this section!
• Your writing is clear and easy to follow.
• I appreciate your attention to detail.
• Your conclusions are well supported by your research.
• Your argument is compelling and engaging.
• I found your analysis to be insightful.
• The organization of your paper is well thought out.
• Your use of citations effectively strengthens your claims.
• Your methodology is well explained and thorough.
• I’m impressed with the depth of your literature review.
• Your examples are relevant and informative.
• You’ve made excellent connections throughout your analysis.
• Your grasp of the subject matter is impressive.
• The clarity of your images and figures is commendable.
• Your transitions between topics are smooth and well-executed.
• You’ve effectively communicated complex ideas.
• Your writing style is engaging and appropriate for your target audience.
• Your presentation of results is easy to understand.
• Your tone is consistent and professional.
• Your overall argument is persuasive.
• Your use of formatting helps guide the reader.
• Your tables, graphs, and illustrations enhance your argument.
• Your interpretation of the data is insightful and well-reasoned.
• Your discussion is balanced and well-rounded.
• The connections you make throughout your paper are thought-provoking.
• Your approach to the topic is fresh and innovative.
• You’ve done a fantastic job synthesizing information from various sources.
• Your attention to the needs of the reader is commendable.
• The care you’ve taken in addressing counterarguments is impressive.
• Your conclusions are well-drawn and thought-provoking.

Balancing Feedback

Combining positive and negative remarks.

When providing peer review feedback, it’s important to balance positive and negative comments: this approach allows the reviewer to maintain a friendly tone and helps the recipient feel reassured.

Examples of Positive Remarks:

• Well-organized
• Clear and concise
• Excellent use of examples
• Thorough research
• Articulate argument
• Engaging writing style
• Thoughtful analysis
• Strong grasp of the topic
• Relevant citations
• Logical structure
• Smooth transitions
• Compelling conclusion
• Original ideas
• Solid supporting evidence
• Succinct summary

Examples of Negative Remarks:

• Unclear thesis
• Lacks focus
• Insufficient evidence
• Overgeneralization
• Inconsistent argument
• Redundant phrasing
• Jargon-filled language
• Poor formatting
• Grammatical errors
• Unconvincing argument
• Confusing organization
• Needs more examples
• Weak citations
• Unsupported claims
• Ambiguous phrasing

Ensuring Objectivity

Avoid using emotionally charged language or personal opinions. Instead, base your feedback on facts and evidence.

For example, instead of saying, “I don’t like your choice of examples,” you could say, “Including more diverse examples would strengthen your argument.”

Personalizing Feedback

Tailor your feedback to the individual and their work, avoiding generic or blanket statements. Acknowledge the writer’s strengths and demonstrate an understanding of their perspective. Providing personalized, specific, and constructive comments will enable the recipient to grow and improve their work.

For instance, you might say, “Your writing style is engaging, but consider adding more examples to support your points,” or “I appreciate your thorough research, but be mindful of avoiding overgeneralizations.”

Phrases for Positive Feedback

• Great job on the presentation, your research was comprehensive.
• I appreciate your attention to detail in this project.
• You showed excellent teamwork and communication skills.
• Impressive progress on the task, keep it up!
• Your creativity really shined in this project.
• Thank you for your hard work and dedication.
• Your problem-solving skills were crucial to the success of this task.
• I am impressed by your ability to multitask.
• Your time management in finishing this project was stellar.
• Excellent initiative in solving the issue.
• Your work showcases your exceptional analytical skills.
• Your positive attitude is contagious!
• You were successful in making a complex subject easier to grasp.
• Your collaboration skills truly enhanced our team’s effectiveness.
• You handled the pressure and deadlines admirably.
• Your written communication is both thorough and concise.
• Your responsiveness to feedback is commendable.
• Your flexibility in adapting to new challenges is impressive.
• Thank you for your consistently accurate work.
• Your devotion to professional development is inspiring.
• You display strong leadership qualities.
• You demonstrate empathy and understanding in handling conflicts.
• Your active listening skills contribute greatly to our discussions.
• You consistently take ownership of your tasks.
• Your resourcefulness was key in overcoming obstacles.
• You consistently display a can-do attitude.
• Your presentation skills are top-notch!
• You are a valuable asset to our team.
• Your positive energy boosts team morale.
• Your work displays your tremendous growth in this area.
• Your ability to stay organized is commendable.
• You consistently meet or exceed expectations.
• Your commitment to self-improvement is truly inspiring.
• Your persistence in tackling challenges is admirable.
• Your ability to grasp new concepts quickly is impressive.
• Your critical thinking skills are a valuable contribution to our team.
• You demonstrate impressive technical expertise in your work.
• Your contributions make a noticeable difference.
• You effectively balance multiple priorities.
• You consistently take the initiative to improve our processes.
• Your ability to mentor and support others is commendable.
• You are perceptive and insightful in offering solutions to problems.
• You actively engage in discussions and share your opinions constructively.
• Your professionalism is a model for others.
• Your ability to quickly adapt to changes is commendable.
• Your work exemplifies your passion for excellence.
• Your desire to learn and grow is inspirational.
• Your excellent organizational skills are a valuable asset.
• You actively seek opportunities to contribute to the team’s success.
• Your willingness to help others is truly appreciated.
• Your presentation was both informative and engaging.
• You exhibit great patience and perseverance in your work.
• Your ability to navigate complex situations is impressive.
• Your strategic thinking has contributed to our success.
• Your accountability in your work is commendable.
• Your ability to motivate others is admirable.
• Your reliability has contributed significantly to the team’s success.
• Your enthusiasm for your work is contagious.
• Your diplomatic approach to resolving conflict is commendable.
• Your ability to persevere despite setbacks is truly inspiring.
• Your ability to build strong relationships with clients is impressive.
• Your ability to prioritize tasks is invaluable to our team.
• Your work consistently demonstrates your commitment to quality.
• Your ability to break down complex information is excellent.
• Your ability to think on your feet is greatly appreciated.
• You consistently go above and beyond your job responsibilities.
• Your attention to detail consistently ensures the accuracy of your work.
• Your commitment to our team’s success is truly inspiring.
• Your ability to maintain composure under stress is commendable.
• Your contributions have made our project a success.
• Your confidence and conviction in your work is motivating.
• Thank you for stepping up and taking the lead on this task.
• Your willingness to learn from mistakes is encouraging.
• Your decision-making skills contribute greatly to the success of our team.
• Your communication skills are essential for our team’s effectiveness.
• Your ability to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously is impressive.
• Your passion for your work is infectious.
• Your courage in addressing challenges head-on is remarkable.
• Your ability to prioritize tasks and manage your own workload is commendable.
• You consistently demonstrate strong problem-solving skills.
• Your work reflects your dedication to continuous improvement.
• Your sense of humor helps lighten the mood during stressful times.
• Your ability to take constructive feedback on board is impressive.
• You always find opportunities to learn and develop your skills.
• Your attention to safety protocols is much appreciated.
• Your respect for deadlines is commendable.
• Your focused approach to work is motivating to others.
• You always search for ways to optimize our processes.
• Your commitment to maintaining a high standard of work is inspirational.
• Your excellent customer service skills are a true asset.
• You demonstrate strong initiative in finding solutions to problems.
• Your adaptability to new situations is an inspiration.
• Your ability to manage change effectively is commendable.
• Your proactive communication is appreciated by the entire team.
• Your drive for continuous improvement is infectious.
• Your input consistently elevates the quality of our discussions.
• Your ability to handle both big picture and detailed tasks is impressive.
• Your integrity and honesty are commendable.
• Your ability to take on new responsibilities is truly inspiring.
• Your strong work ethic is setting a high standard for the entire team.

Phrases for Areas of Improvement

• You might consider revisiting the structure of your argument.
• You could work on clarifying your main point.
• Your presentation would benefit from additional examples.
• Perhaps try exploring alternative perspectives.
• It would be helpful to provide more context for your readers.
• You may want to focus on improving the flow of your writing.
• Consider incorporating additional evidence to support your claims.
• You could benefit from refining your writing style.
• It would be useful to address potential counterarguments.
• You might want to elaborate on your conclusion.
• Perhaps consider revisiting your methodology.
• Consider providing a more in-depth analysis.
• You may want to strengthen your introduction.
• Your paper could benefit from additional proofreading.
• You could work on making your topic more accessible to your readers.
• Consider tightening your focus on key points.
• It might be helpful to add more visual aids to your presentation.
• You could strive for more cohesion between your sections.
• Your abstract would benefit from a more concise summary.
• Perhaps try to engage your audience more actively.
• You may want to improve the organization of your thoughts.
• It would be useful to cite more reputable sources.
• Consider emphasizing the relevance of your topic.
• Your argument could benefit from stronger parallels.
• You may want to add transitional phrases for improved readability.
• It might be helpful to provide more concrete examples.
• You could work on maintaining a consistent tone throughout.
• Consider employing a more dynamic vocabulary.
• Your project would benefit from a clearer roadmap.
• Perhaps explore the limitations of your study.
• It would be helpful to demonstrate the impact of your research.
• You could work on the consistency of your formatting.
• Consider refining your choice of images.
• You may want to improve the pacing of your presentation.
• Make an effort to maintain eye contact with your audience.
• Perhaps adding humor or anecdotes would engage your listeners.
• You could work on modulating your voice for emphasis.
• It would be helpful to practice your timing.
• Consider incorporating more interactive elements.
• You might want to speak more slowly and clearly.
• Your project could benefit from additional feedback from experts.
• You might want to consider the practical implications of your findings.
• It would be useful to provide a more user-friendly interface.
• Consider incorporating a more diverse range of sources.
• You may want to hone your presentation to a specific audience.
• You could work on the visual design of your slides.
• Your writing might benefit from improved grammatical accuracy.
• It would be helpful to reduce jargon for clarity.
• You might consider refining your data visualization.
• Perhaps provide a summary of key points for easier comprehension.
• You may want to develop your skills in a particular area.
• Consider attending workshops or trainings for continued learning.
• Your project could benefit from stronger collaboration.
• It might be helpful to seek guidance from mentors or experts.
• You could work on managing your time more effectively.
• It would be useful to set goals and priorities for improvement.
• You might want to identify areas where you can grow professionally.
• Consider setting aside time for reflection and self-assessment.
• Perhaps develop strategies for overcoming challenges.
• You could work on increasing your confidence in public speaking.
• Consider collaborating with others for fresh insights.
• You may want to practice active listening during discussions.
• Be open to feedback and constructive criticism.
• It might be helpful to develop empathy for team members’ perspectives.
• You could work on being more adaptable to change.
• It would be useful to improve your problem-solving abilities.
• Perhaps explore opportunities for networking and engagement.
• You may want to set personal benchmarks for success.
• You might benefit from being more proactive in seeking opportunities.
• Consider refining your negotiation and persuasion skills.
• It would be helpful to enhance your interpersonal communication.
• You could work on being more organized and detail-oriented.
• You may want to focus on strengthening leadership qualities.
• Consider improving your ability to work effectively under pressure.
• Encourage open dialogue among colleagues to promote a positive work environment.
• It might be useful to develop a growth mindset.
• Be open to trying new approaches and techniques.
• Consider building stronger relationships with colleagues and peers.
• It would be helpful to manage expectations more effectively.
• You might want to delegate tasks more efficiently.
• You could work on your ability to prioritize workload effectively.
• It would be useful to review and update processes and procedures regularly.
• Consider creating a more inclusive working environment.
• You might want to seek opportunities to mentor and support others.
• Recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of your team members.
• Consider developing a more strategic approach to decision-making.
• You may want to establish clear goals and objectives for your team.
• It would be helpful to provide regular and timely feedback.
• Consider enhancing your delegation and time-management skills.
• Be open to learning from your team’s diverse skill sets.
• You could work on cultivating a collaborative culture.
• It would be useful to engage in continuous professional development.
• Consider seeking regular feedback from colleagues and peers.
• You may want to nurture your own personal resilience.
• Reflect on areas of improvement and develop an action plan.
• It might be helpful to share your progress with a mentor or accountability partner.
• Encourage your team to support one another’s growth and development.
• Consider celebrating and acknowledging small successes.
• You could work on cultivating effective communication habits.
• Be willing to take calculated risks and learn from any setbacks.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can i phrase constructive feedback in peer evaluations.

To give constructive feedback in peer evaluations, try focusing on specific actions or behaviors that can be improved. Use phrases like “I noticed that…” or “You might consider…” to gently introduce your observations. For example, “You might consider asking for help when handling multiple tasks to improve time management.”

What are some examples of positive comments in peer reviews?

• “Your presentation was engaging and well-organized, making it easy for the team to understand.”
• “You are a great team player, always willing to help others and contribute to the project’s success.”
• “Your attention to detail in documentation has made it easier for the whole team to access information quickly.”

Can you suggest ways to highlight strengths in peer appraisals?

Highlighting strengths in peer appraisals can be done by mentioning specific examples of how the individual excelled or went above and beyond expectations. You can also point out how their strengths positively impacted the team. For instance:

• “Your effective communication skills ensured that everyone was on the same page during the project.”
• “Your creativity in problem-solving helped resolve a complex issue that benefited the entire team.”

What are helpful phrases to use when noting areas for improvement in a peer review?

When noting areas for improvement in a peer review, try using phrases that encourage growth and development. Some examples include:

• “To enhance your time management skills, you might try prioritizing tasks or setting deadlines.”
• “By seeking feedback more often, you can continue to grow and improve in your role.”
• “Consider collaborating more with team members to benefit from their perspectives and expertise.”

How should I approach writing a peer review for a manager differently?

When writing a peer review for a manager, it’s important to focus on their leadership qualities and how they can better support their team. Some suggestions might include:

• “Encouraging more open communication can help create a more collaborative team environment.”
• “By providing clearer expectations or deadlines, you can help reduce confusion and promote productivity.”
• “Consider offering recognition to team members for their hard work, as this can boost motivation and morale.”

What is a diplomatic way to discuss negative aspects in a peer review?

Discussing negative aspects in a peer review requires tact and empathy. Try focusing on behaviors and actions rather than personal attributes, and use phrases that suggest areas for growth. For example:

• “While your dedication to the project is admirable, it might be beneficial to delegate some tasks to avoid burnout.”
• “Improving communication with colleagues can lead to better alignment within the team.”
• “By asking for feedback, you can identify potential blind spots and continue to grow professionally.”
• Flexibility: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• Job Knowledge Performance Review Phrases (Examples)
• Integrity: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• 60 Smart Examples: Positive Feedback for Manager in a Review
• 30 Employee Feedback Examples (Positive & Negative)
• Initiative: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples

• University of Pennsylvania
• School of Arts and Sciences
• Penn Calendar

Search form

Questions for Peer Review

Katherine milligan.

1. (Argument) Summarize the main idea of the draft briefly in your own words.

2. (Argument, Organization) Does the opening establish a clear starting point for the paper (a thesis, or at least a focussed topic)? Would some other part of the draft make a better introduction?

3. (Argument) Does the paper conclude with a whimper or a shout? Is the conclusion merely repetitive, or does it synthesize ideas, suggest new directions of thought, re-evaluate the introductory statements?

4. (Argument) Has any significant aspect of the question been neglected?

5. (Argument) Is there any point where the paper tends to fall from the level of analysis to the level of observation?

6. (Organization) How does the draft hold together? Which paragraphs don't connect well with preceding or subsequent ones?

7. (Organization, Evidence) Are there paragraphs that seem less coherent or less convincing than others? If so, choose one and explain how it might be clarified and/or better supported.

8. (Evidence) Select the best phrases, paragraphs, and/or ideas in the paper. Can they be exploited more thoroughly? How?

9. (Mechanics) Note problems with sentence structure, grammar, word choice, and other mechanical issues.

10. Respond to any questions the writer poses about her/his own draft.

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

saving science —

Peer review is essential for science. unfortunately, it’s broken., there's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway..

Paul Sutter - Jul 12, 2024 11:00 am UTC

Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt was the most difficult book I've ever written. I'm a cosmologist—I study the origins, structure, and evolution of the Universe. I love science. I live and breathe science. If science were a breakfast cereal, I'd eat it every morning. And at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, I watched in alarm as public trust in science disintegrated.

But I don't know how to change people's minds. I don't know how to convince someone to trust science again. So as I started writing my book, I flipped the question around: is there anything we can do to make the institution of science more worthy of trust?

The short answer is yes. The long answer takes an entire book. In the book, I explore several different sources of mistrust—the disincentives scientists face when they try to communicate with the public, the lack of long-term careers, the complicitness of scientists when their work is politicized, and much more—and offer proactive steps we can take to address these issues to rebuild trust.

The section below is taken from a chapter discussing the relentless pressure to publish that scientists face, and the corresponding explosion in fraud that this pressure creates. Fraud can take many forms, from the "hard fraud" of outright fabrication of data, to many kinds of "soft fraud" that include plagiarism, manipulation of data, and careful selection of methods to achieve a desired result. The more that fraud thrives, the more that the public loses trust in science. Addressing this requires a fundamental shift in the incentive and reward structures that scientists work in. A difficult task to be sure, but not an impossible one—and one that I firmly believe will be worth the effort.

Modern science is hard, complex, and built from many layers and many years of hard work. And modern science, almost everywhere, is based on computation. Save for a few (and I mean very few) die-hard theorists who insist on writing things down with pen and paper, there is almost an absolute guarantee that with any paper in any field of science that you could possibly read, a computer was involved in some step of the process.

Whether it’s studying bird droppings or the collisions of galaxies, modern-day science owes its very existence—and continued persistence—to the computer. From the laptop sitting on an unkempt desk to a giant machine that fills up a room, “S. Transistor” should be the coauthor on basically all three million journal articles published every year.

The sheer complexity of modern science, and its reliance on customized software, renders one of the frontline defenses against soft and hard fraud useless. That defense is peer review.

The practice of peer review was developed in a different era, when the arguments and analysis that led to a paper’s conclusion could be succinctly summarized within the paper itself. Want to know how the author arrived at that conclusion? The derivation would be right there. It was relatively easy to judge the “wrongness” of an article because you could follow the document from beginning to end, from start to finish, and have all the information you needed to evaluate it right there at your fingerprints. That’s now largely impossible with the modern scientific enterprise so reliant on computers.

To makes matters worse, many of the software codes used in science are not publicly available. I’ll say this again because it’s kind of wild to even contemplate: there are millions of papers published every year that rely on computer software to make the results happen, and that software is not available for other scientists to scrutinize to see if it’s legit or not. We simply have to trust it, but the word “trust” is very near the bottom of the scientist’s priority list.

Why don’t scientists make their code available? It boils down to the same reason that scientists don’t do many things that would improve the process of science: there’s no incentive. In this case, you don’t get any h-index points for releasing your code on a website. You only get them for publishing papers.

This infinitely agitates me when I peer-review papers. How am I supposed to judge the correctness of an article if I can’t see the entire process? What’s the point of searching for fraud when the computer code that’s sitting behind the published result can be shaped and molded to give any result you want, and nobody will be the wiser?

I’m not even talking about intentional computer-based fraud here; this is even a problem for detecting basic mistakes. If you make a mistake in a paper, a referee or an editor can spot it. And science is better off for it. If you make a mistake in your code... who checks it? As long as the results look correct, you’ll go ahead and publish it and the peer reviewer will go ahead and accept it. And science is worse off for it.

Science is getting more complex over time and is becoming increasingly reliant on software code to keep the engine going. This makes fraud of both the hard and soft varieties easier to accomplish. From mistakes that you pass over because you’re going too fast, to using sophisticated tools that you barely understand but use to get the result that you wanted, to just totally faking it, science is becoming increasingly wrong.

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Effectiveness of...

Effectiveness of behavioural interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

• Related content
• Peer review
• SuFen Zhu , doctoral student 1 ,
• Deepra Sinha , medical student 2 ,
• Megan Kirk , senior researcher 1 ,
• Moscho Michalopoulou , postdoctoral researcher 1 ,
• Anisa Hajizadeh , doctoral student 1 ,
• Gina Wren , doctoral student 1 ,
• Paul Doody , postdoctoral researcher 1 ,
• Lucy Mackillop , consultant obstetric physician 3 ,
• Ralph Smith , consultant sport and exercise medicine 4 ,
• Susan A Jebb , professor of diet and population health 1 ,
• 1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• 2 St Hugh’s College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• 3 Nuffield Department of Women’s and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
• 4 Sport and Exercise Medicine Department, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
• Correspondence to: N M Astbury nerys.astbury{at}phc.ox.ac.uk
• Accepted 14 May 2024

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural interventions that include motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study selection A search of seven databases for randomised controlled trials published from inception to 1 March 2023 comparing a behavioural intervention including motivational interviewing with a comparator without motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults. Outcomes of interest were differences in change in quantitative measures of total physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and sedentary time.

Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Population characteristics, intervention components, comparison groups, and outcomes of studies were summarised. For overall main effects, random effects meta-analyses were used to report standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Differential effects based on duration of follow-up, comparator type, intervention duration, and disease or health condition of participants were also examined.

Results 129 papers reporting 97 randomised controlled trials totalling 27 811 participants and 105 comparisons were included. Interventions including motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for increases in total physical activity (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.65, equivalent to 1323 extra steps/day; low certainty evidence) and MVPA (0.45, 0.19 to 0.71, equivalent to 95 extra min/week; very low certainty evidence) and for reductions in sedentary time (−0.58, −1.03 to −0.14, equivalent to −51 min/day; very low certainty evidence). Evidence for a difference in any outcome compared with comparators of similar intensity was lacking. The magnitude of effect diminished over time, and evidence of an effect of motivational interviewing beyond one year was lacking. Most interventions involved patients with a specific health condition, and evidence of an effect of motivational interviewing to increase MVPA or decrease sedentary time was lacking in general population samples.

Conclusions Certainty of the evidence using motivational interviewing as part of complex behavioural interventions for promoting total physical activity in adults was low, and for MVPA and sedentary time was very low. The totality of evidence suggests that although interventions with motivational interviewing increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behaviour, no difference was found in studies where the effect of motivational interviewing could be isolated. Effectiveness waned over time, with no evidence of a benefit of motivational interviewing to increase physical activity beyond one year.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020219881.

Introduction

Physical inactivity, or the failure to meet physical activity recommendations, is one of the leading risk factors for non-communicable diseases, 1 and it is responsible for an estimated 9% of premature deaths worldwide. 2 The benefits on health of being physically active are dose dependent, so most people—including those who currently achieve physical activity recommendations—are likely to benefit from being more physically active. 3

Guidelines from the World Health Organization recommend that adults (aged 18-64 years) should engage in a minimum of 150-300 minutes of moderate intensity, or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity, physical activity each week, combined with strength training activities to develop or maintain strength in major muscle groups, as well as a reduction in sedentary time. 4 Despite longstanding policy initiatives, however, one in three women and one in four men do not meet the levels of physical activity set out in the guidelines. 5 6 A systematic review found that individual level interventions to promote physical activity that provided professional advice and guidance with continued support can encourage people to be more physically active in the short to medium term. 7 More research is, however, needed to establish which behaviour change techniques are most effective in the long term. 7

Motivational interviewing is a communication technique commonly used in multicomponent, complex interventions to elicit behavioural change. 8 It is a patient centred counselling style that helps patients change their problematic behaviours by exploring and resolving their ambivalence towards behavioural change in a non-confrontational style. 9 Motivational interviewing empowers patients to increase their autonomous motivation, such that change arises from within the individual rather than being imposed by others, 10 11 and it has been used successfully in people who smoke, have addiction problems, or have an eating disorder, and in diabetes management. 12 13 14 Therefore motivational interviewing may be a useful technique to help people achieve physical activity guidelines, since interventions that include motivational interviewing could feasibly be delivered at scale by healthcare professionals who have regular contact with people.

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that interventions with motivational interviewing led to a small but significant increase in physical activity in the short term in patients with specific health conditions. 15 16 17 However, less consideration has been given to longer term effects and the effects in general population samples. Motivational interviewing requires the people who deliver the interventions to undergo specialist training and continued professional development to learn and develop the skills required to enhance motivation towards behaviour change. Interventions that include motivational interviewing therefore require extended intervention contact time and sessions, resulting in additional time and financial resources for delivery. As such it is important to determine the effectiveness of interventions with motivational interviewing and to examine the durability of the effect beyond the active intervention period.

We systematically reviewed the evidence from randomised controlled trials for behavioural interventions that included motivational interviewing for the promotion of physical activity in adults. Additionally, we examined the effect of treatment duration, durability of any effect, and the effectiveness in groups selected on the basis of pre-existing disease or health conditions, or in the general population who were not specifically selected because of their health condition or disease status.

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. 18 A protocol was developed and prospectively registered with PROSPERO and is available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=219881 .

Eligibility criteria

Eligible criteria were randomised controlled trials, including cluster randomised trials, in adults (≥18 years) that compared interventions comprising motivational interviewing to support or promote physical activity as the primary or secondary treatment goal versus interventions without a motivational interviewing component. The interventions with motivational interviewing had to specify that a component of the intervention included the core principles of motivational interviewing as outlined by Miller and Rollick. 11 These principles include having a clear focus on the behaviour change (in this case, physical activity), empathetic listening to establish a relationship, and evoking patients’ own motivation for change. 9 We determined that the study was eligible in terms of intervention content if authors stated motivational interviewing or motivational interviewing techniques were applied. Using a checklist, reviewers allocated eligible comparator interventions to one of three groups: no intervention, minimal control (including usual care) intervention, or active control intervention, all of which used alternative approaches or interventions to promote physical activity that did not include motivational interviewing techniques. To be eligible for inclusion the study had to include a quantitative physical activity outcome at baseline and follow-up.

Eligible studies needed to report at least one of the physical activity outcomes of interest—total physical activity, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), or sedentary time, or a combination of these—using a quantitative unit (eg, steps/day, min/day, min/week, energy expenditure, metabolic equivalents (METs)). When a study did not report all the outcomes of interest, we included the study results in the analysis for only the outcomes reported. If studies used more than one method to assess total physical activity and sedentary time outcomes, we prioritised device-measured outcomes over self-reported outcome measures. If more than one device-measured method was reported, we prioritised measures reporting time spent on physical activity, followed by step counts, distance walked, and energy expenditure or metabolic equivalent of task. If no result for a device-measured outcome was available, we extracted self-reported measures such as questionnaires and diaries.

To determine the effect of interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity over time, we examined effectiveness at 0-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-12 months, and >1 year from baseline.

Search methods for identification of studies

We systematically searched seven electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, AMED, Medline, PsychINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for articles, including theses, published from inception until 1 March 2023. Searches were restricted to studies in English language. To locate further relevant publications we performed forward and backwards citation searches of previous systematic reviews. To identify ongoing clinical trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted the authors of published study protocols if there was uncertainty about a trial’s status (ie, if the anticipated completion date was overdue but we could not identify the published study). Supplementary table 1 presents a sample of our search strategy.

Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias

After duplicates had been removed, a combination of two reviewers (DS, MM, AH, SZ, PD, GW, MK, NMA) independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified studies using the Cochrane systematic review software Covidence ( www.covidence.org ). 19 Two reviewers then independently assessed the full text of articles against the defined eligibility criteria, with discrepancies resolved by discussion or by consultation with a third reviewer. A prespecified and piloted data extraction form was used to obtain key information from included studies on study setting, population characteristics, intervention characteristics (according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication 20 ), and outcome data. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third reviewer.

Risk of bias assessment

Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias of included studies using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials. 21 Studies were judged to be at low or high risk of bias or to have some concerns in several domains: randomisation process, deviation from the intended intervention, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of reported results. Overall ratings were taken from the most biased rating across all domains (ie, if one domain was judged to be high then the overall rating was high). Disagreements between reviewers were discussed until consensus was reached.

Data synthesis and analysis

We extracted the mean and standard deviation (SD) for outcome measures. If these were not reported or unavailable, they were estimated using reported data or graphical figures, or if only medians were available we used these as a direct replacement for mean values, as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook. 22 We contacted authors for missing data and clarification when necessary. To overcome variability in the way physical activity outcomes were measured in different studies, we calculated the difference in the change in physical activity from baseline (pre-intervention) to follow-up between intervention and comparator groups using standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Because studies dealt with missing follow-up data in different ways, to reduce spurious heterogeneity we extracted the complete case data and then used the baseline observation carried forward for missing data to recalculate the change in physical activity. 23 For studies that were eligible for inclusion but did not provide enough data for meta-analysis, we synthesised the study results narratively.

Pooled data were summarised using Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects meta-analysis. 24 Based on feedback from our patient and public involvement group, to make findings more meaningful for the main findings we transformed the SMDs from the pooled analyses on total physical activity, MVPA, and sedentary time into equivalent weighted mean differences in daily steps (for total physical activity), weekly minutes (for MVPA), and daily minutes (for sedentary time). 22 For this conversion, we used median SDs of 2940 steps/day for total physical activity, 211 min/week for MVPA, and 87 min/day for sedentary time. 25 If a study contributed more than one intervention arm to a meta‐analysis, we divided the control group equally between interventions to avoid double counting in the pooled result.

Two types of meta-analyses were performed. For the meta-analyses on overall main effects, we included the longest follow-up measure of physical activity from each study. For meta-analyses split by follow-up assessment time, each study was eligible for inclusion once in each follow-up group (0-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-12 months, and >1 year). If a study reported outcomes at several follow-up time points within each follow-up group (eg, four weeks and 12 weeks), we used the longest follow-up in the analysis (ie, the study was only included once in each follow-up group analysis).

We used the Cochrane Q test to identify heterogeneity, and quantified it using the I 2 statistic and the between study variance τ 2 . We followed Cochrane Handbook recommendations to interpret I 2 values (<0.4 representing a small effect, 0.4-0.7 a moderate effect, >0.7 a large effect). 22 Heterogeneity was explored by determining the effect of several variables on the outcomes: comparator type, intervention durations, outcome assessment method, and participant disease or health condition status.

Funnel plots were generated and Egger’s test was performed to detect small study and publication bias. For all statistical analyses, we considered an α of <0.05 to be statistically significant. STATA SE 17.0 was used for all analyses. The statistical code used in the analysis is available at https://github.com/nerysastbury/MI_SR.git .

To determine the effect of excluding studies at high risk of bias on overall outcomes, we performed a sensitivity analysis. We had planned a sensitivity analysis excluding studies that reported poor intervention fidelity—however, although studies did report assessing fidelity of the intervention, the outcomes of the assessments were poorly reported, resulting in the inability to create discrete groups based on fidelity outcomes, which is required to undertake a sensitivity analysis.

Two reviewers (NMA and SZ) independently rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The certainty of the evidence was assessed for the domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. 26

Patient and public involvement

We convened a focus group of five individuals who self-identified as not being physically active but wanted to increase daily physical activity or had been advised to do so by a healthcare professional. The purpose of the review was described in detail to them, and the findings were explained. Our patient and public involvement panel agreed the review was useful, and it provided feedback on interpretation of the findings and suggested we describe the results in a more meaningful way. This led to our decision to convert SMD into more meaningful outcomes to be more easily interpretable by members of the public, and we present these conversions alongside the main results.

A literature search on 1 March 2023 identified a total of 7323 unique records, of which 359 full texts were assessed for eligibility. The main reasons for exclusion at the full text stage were that studies did not specify use of motivational interviewing in their intervention or they did not report a quantitative physical activity outcome measure ( fig 1 ). In total, 97 unique randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of 105 interventions comprising motivational interviewing in 27 811 participants were included. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

Flow of study selection through review

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Characteristics of included studies

Supplementary table 2 provides the characteristics of the included studies. Study sample sizes varied from 23 to 4283 participants, with six studies comprising >1000 participants. 52 57 62 73 82 118 The median age of participants was 55.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 45.7-64.2) years and median baseline body mass index (BMI) was 28.9 (27.2-30.8). The median proportion of female participants was 66% (34%). Most of the included studies were conducted in high income countries in North America (n=44, 45%), Europe (n=35, 36%), Asia (n=2, 2%), Middle East (n=1, 1%), and Australasia (n=12, 12%), with only three studies (2%) conducted in low and middle income countries (Iran, North Korea, Turkey). Around one quarter of the studies (n=25, 28%) were conducted in generally healthy participants, with the remainder (n=72, 74%) in patients with a health condition or pre-existing disease. The most common health condition or disease of interest was cardiovascular disease (including risk reduction and secondary prevention; n=19, 20%), with fewer studies conducted specifically in people with overweight or obesity (n=10, 10%) and those with musculoskeletal conditions (including osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis; n=9, 9%). Thirty three studies assessed outcomes using device-measured methods such as pedometers or accelerometers, and 47 studies used self-reported methods, including questionnaires, physical activity logs, and diaries.

Motivational interviewing was delivered in a variety of ways between the studies (see supplementary table 3). The number of motivational interviewing sessions offered to participants assigned to receive interventions with motivational interviewing ranged from one to 70 over an intervention period of one to 24 months, with a median duration of 32.9 (23.1-60.0) minutes each. In half of the motivational interviewing interventions (n=53, 50%), treatment duration lasted up to three months, with the remaining interventions reporting longer durations: 4-6 months (n=25, 24%), 7-12 months (n=24, 23%), and >1 year, to a maximum of 24 months (n=3, studies, 3%). Most studies (n=89, 92%) reported who delivered the intervention with motivational interviewing, and 74 studies (76%) reported the training and qualifications of the interventionists, which ranged from undergraduate students to experienced psychologists, with considerable variation in amount of training and experience of delivering motivational interviews.

Most interventions with motivational interviewing (n=96, 91%) were delivered in a one-to-one format. Five interventions (5%) were delivered in a combination of individual and group motivational interviewing sessions, and four interventions (4%) offered group sessions only. Motivational interviewing was delivered using a range of modalities, with 33 interventions (31%) delivered face-to-face, 31 (30%) by telephone, and six (6%) through the internet or a mobile application, and 35 studies (n=33) used a combination of in-person and remote delivery methods.

Most of the interventions with motivational interviewing were compared with no intervention or minimal control interventions (n=74, 70%) and 31 (30%) had an active comparator that was either an alternative behavioural intervention to promote physical activity that did not include motivational interviewing of similar (n=11, 10%) or less intensity (n=20, 19%) to the intervention with motivational interviewing being delivered.

Risk of bias and quality assessment

In studies reporting total physical activity, most (n=41, 52%) were judged to be at overall high risk of bias, four (5%) were judged to be at overall low risk of bias, and 34 (43%) had some concerns ( fig 2 ).

Risk of bias in studies reporting outcomes for total physical activity, MVPA, and sedentary time. CI=confidence interval; MVPA=moderate to vigorous physical activity

The main reason for a high overall risk of bias judgement was primarily from bias due to the missing outcome data domain (eg, emphasis on per protocol analysis, incorrect procedures to account for missing data, loss to follow-up concerns). Supplementary figure 1 presents details of the risk of bias assessments for individual studies.

Funnel plot asymmetry was found among studies included in the meta-analysis of motivational interviewing on total physical activity, MVPA, and sedentary time (Egger’s g=2.51 (95% CI 1.34 to 3.66), 2.34 (0.71 to 3.97), and −2.62 (−4.49 to −0.74), respectively) suggesting that studies could be missing in the literature that reported null or negative findings of motivational interviewing or small study effects (supplementary figure 2). 124

Overall effect of motivational interviewing on physical activity

Interventions including motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity (n=76, 19 732 participants, 86 comparisons; SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.65; I 2 =90.8%), equivalent to 1323 extra steps/day (95% CI 970 to 1911) ( fig 3 , supplementary figure 3). Three studies could not be included in this meta-analysis because they failed to report SDs, or information was insufficient that would permit calculation of SDs. Of these studies excluded from the meta-analysis, none reported a difference in physical activity between motivational interviewing and control groups. 41 48 90

Summary standardised mean differences for overall meta-analysis. CI=confidence interval; MVPA=moderate to vigorous physical activity

Interventions including motivational interviewing were also superior to comparators for MVPA (n=42, 10 683 participants, 44 comparisons; SMD 0.45 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.71); I 2 =91.3%), equivalent to 95 extra min/week (95% CI 40 to 150) ( fig 3 , supplementary figure 4). Three studies reporting MVPA outcomes could not be included in the meta-analysis because they failed to report SDs or information to permit calculation of SDs was insufficient. However, these studies reported minimal or no effect of interventions with motivational interviewing on MVPA outcomes. 41 49 52

Interventions including motivational interviewing were superior to comparators in reducing sedentary time (n=23, 2673 participants, 24 comparisons; SMD −0.582, 95% CI 1.03 to 0.14; I 2 =88.3%) ( fig 3 , supplementary figure 5) equating to 51 fewer minutes (95% CI −90 to −12) of sedentary time each day.

Effect of motivational interviewing on physical activity and sedentary time

Comparator type.

As heterogeneity in the outcome measures was considerable, we analysed whether the type of comparator groups had an influence on the overall findings.

No or minimal comparator intervention —Interventions including motivational interviewing were superior to no or minimal comparator interventions (eg, usual care) for total physical activity (n=55, 16 079 participants, 60 comparisons; SMD 0.56 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.76); I 2 =90.4%), MVPA (n=28, 8318 participants, 30 comparisons; 0.45 (0.24 to 0.65); I 2 =90%), and sedentary time (n=13, 1734 participants, 15 comparisons; −0.59 (1.18 to −0.01); I 2 =85.5%) (supplementary figures 6-8).

Less intensive comparator interventions —Some studies compared interventions including motivational interviewing with other active interventions of lower intensity (eg, educational website on how to increase physical activity, single lecture on self-management) that did not include motivational interviewing. Evidence was lacking for a difference between groups for total physical activity (n=18, 2312 participants, 18 comparisons; 0.23 (−0.09 to 0.56); I 2 =92.9%), MVPA (n=12, 1997 participants, 12 comparisons; 0.61 (−0.436 to 1.65); I 2 =94.3%), or sedentary time (n=7, 598 participants, 7 comparisons; −0.65 (−1.80 to 0.51); I 2 =93.7%) (supplementary figure 9).

Similar intensity comparator interventions —To isolate the effect of motivational interviewing on physical activity in complex interventions, we compared interventions including motivational interviewing with comparator interventions of similar intensity that did not include motivational interviewing. Evidence was lacking for a difference between groups for total physical activity (n=7, 1340 participants, eight comparisons; 0.43 (−0.08 to 0.927); I 2 =83.3%), MVPA n=2, 368 participants, two comparisons; 0.02 (−0.55 to 0.59); I 2 =0%), or sedentary time (n=1, 302 participants, one comparison; −0.08 (−0.31 to 0.152) (supplementary figure 10).

Outcome assessment method

We compared effects in studies with device-measured outcomes with studies using self-reported outcome assessment methods. No significant between group heterogeneity was found for device-measured and self-reported measured groups for total physical activity (P=0.33), MVPA (P=0.43), or sedentary time (P=0.07), and heterogeneity remained substantial within these subgroups (supplementary figures 11-13).

Device-measured outcome assessment methods —In the studies using device-measured outcome assessment methods, evidence suggested that interventions with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity (n=25, 19 732 participants, 27 comparisons; 0.37 (0.10 to 0.64); I 2 =91.3%), MVPA (n=42, 10 683 participants, 44 comparisons; 0.61 (0.19 to 0.71); I 2 =90.7%), and sedentary time (n=11, 1123 participants, 13 comparisons; −0.26 (−0.89 to 0.38); I 2 =86.8%).

Self-reported outcome assessment methods —For the studies that used self-reported outcome assessment methods, interventions with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity (n=54, 15 152 participants, 59 comparisons; 0.53 (0.34 to 0.73); I 2 =90.6%), MVPA (n=23, 8243 participants, 24 comparisons; 0.37 (0.11 to 0.62); I 2 =91.7%), and sedentary time (n=9, 1550 participants, 11 comparisons; −1.01 (−1.65 to −0.37); I 2 =90.1%).

Durability of effectiveness of motivational interviewing over time

We examined the effectiveness of interventions with motivational interviewing at 0-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-12 months, and >1 year from baseline. For all follow-up times up to 12 months, interventions with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity, MVPA, and sedentary time, with a trend for declining effect size with increasing duration of follow-up ( fig 4 ). For studies with follow-up beyond one year, evidence that interventions with motivational interviewing were any different from comparators for any of the three outcomes was lacking ( fig 4 , supplementary figures 14-25). Heterogeneity between studies in each outcome at each time point was substantial, apart for sedentary time at >1 year follow-up, where only two eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis (I 2 =0%).

Summary standardised mean differences for meta-analysis at each follow-up time. CI=confidence interval; MVPA=moderate to vigorous physical activity

Effect of treatment duration

For interventions of up to three months’ duration, those with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity at the end of the intervention period (n=34, 2182 participants, 32 comparisons; 0.70 (0.46 to 0.92); I 2 =79.2%) (supplementary figure 26), but evidence was lacking for a statistically significant difference between groups after the intervention ended (supplementary figures 27 and 28). Heterogeneity was substantial at all time points.

For interventions of 4-6 months’ duration, those with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity at the end of the intervention period (n=19 studies, 3218 participants, 20 comparisons; 0.99 (0.49 to 1.49); I 2 =94.1%) (supplementary figure 29), and these effects were sustained at 7-12 months follow-up (n=4, 1221 participants, 2 comparisons; 0.23 (0.10 to 0.37); I 2 =0%) (supplementary figure 30), but not for follow-up beyond one year (n=2, 648 participants, 2 comparisons; 0.004 (−0.18 to 0.19); I 2 =0%) (supplementary figure 31). Heterogeneity was substantial at the end of intervention follow-up, but the results of longer term follow-up showed no heterogeneity.

For interventions of 7-12 months’ duration, those with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity at the end of the intervention period (n=17, 11 262 participants, 21 comparisons; 0.26 (0.06 to 0.47); I 2 =89.7%) (supplementary figure 32), but evidence of a difference between groups in studies reporting follow-up beyond one year was lacking (n=5 studies, 8358 participants, 7 comparisons; 0.13 (−0.11 to 0.37); I 2 =78.6%) (supplementary figure 33).

For interventions of 12 months’ duration or longer, no statistically significant difference was found between interventions with motivational interviewing and comparators for physical activity at the end of the intervention period (n=3 studies, 1103 participants, 73 comparisons; −0.20 (–2.24 to 1.85); I 2 =98.2%) (supplementary figure 34).

For MVPA outcomes, interventions with motivational interviewing of up to 12 months’ duration were superior to comparators at 0-3 months follow-up (supplementary figure 35), but no significant differences were evident at longer follow-up times (supplementary figures 36-38). Interventions with motivational interviewing of longer than one year’s duration were not statistically significantly different from comparators at any follow-up time (supplementary figures 35-38).

For sedentary time outcomes, evidence for interventions with motivational interviewing being superior to comparators was lacking, regardless of intervention duration at any follow-up time (supplementary figures 39-42).

Impact of participant health status

In studies of people with a pre-existing health condition or disease, evidence suggested that interventions with motivational interviewing led to greater increases in total physical activity (n=60, 10 525 participants, 66 comparisons; 0.55 (0.35 to 0.76); I 2 =91.2%) and MVPA (n=34, 7094 participants, 36 comparisons; 0.46 (0.26 to 0.67); I 2 =90.3%), and reductions in sedentary time (n=18, 2171 participants, 20 comparisons; −0.72 (−1.2 to −0.22); I 2 =87.8%) (supplementary figures 43-45).

In studies of people not specifically selected on the basis of a pre-existing health condition or disease, interventions with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for total physical activity (n=19 studies, 9207 participants, 20 comparisons; 0.35 (0.13 to 0.57); I 2 =89.6%). Evidence that interventions with motivational interviewing were superior to comparators for MVPA (n=8, 3589 participants; 0.43 (−0.99 to 1.84); I 2 =94.6%) or sedentary time (n=4, 502 participants; −0.02 (−1.27 to 1.23); I 2 =90.5%) (supplementary figures 46-48) was lacking.

Sensitivity analysis

We conducted sensitivity analyses on the principal outcomes, excluding those studies judged at overall high risk of bias.

When studies at high risk of bias were excluded from analysis, interventions with motivational interviewing remained superior to comparators for total physical activity (n=38, 8467 participants, 40 comparisons; 0.54 (0.31 to 0.78); I 2 =89.2%) (supplementary figure 49) but showed no difference for MVPA (n=21, 4935 participants, 22 comparisons; 0.41 (−0.07 to 0.90); I 2 =92.1%) (supplementary figure 50) or sedentary time (n=13, 1476 participants, 3 comparisons; −0.22 (−0.70 to 0.26); I 2 =82.7%) (supplementary figure 51).

Certainty of evidence

Total physical activity.

Certainty in the effect estimates for interventions with motivational interviewing on total physical activity was rated as low.

Sensitivity analysis removing studies judged at overall high risk of bias did not affect the outcome on total physical activity. Heterogeneity was, however, substantial (I 2 =90.8%), which could not be fully explained by comparator type, follow-up duration, intervention duration, disease status of participants, device outcome assessment method, or risk of bias. Furthermore, funnel plot asymmetry was evident, suggesting potentially over-optimistic estimates of the effect of interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity, possibly due to publication and small study bias. Certainty in the effect estimate was therefore downgraded one level owing to unexplained inconsistency, and one level owing to publication bias.

Certainty in the effect estimates for interventions with motivational interviewing on MVPA was rated as very low.

Heterogeneity was substantial (I 2 =91.3%), which could not be fully explained by comparator type, follow-up duration, intervention duration, disease status of participants, device outcome assessment method, or risk of bias. Funnel plot asymmetry was evident, suggesting publication or small study bias, and sensitivity analysis excluding studies judged to be at high risk of bias resulted in no difference between interventions with motivational interviewing and comparators. Certainty of evidence was therefore downgraded two levels owing to very serious unexplained inconsistency, and one level owing to publication bias.

Sedentary time

Certainty of the effect estimates for sedentary time was very low.

Heterogeneity was substantial (I 2 =88.3%), which could not be fully explained. Funnel plot asymmetry was significant, and the sensitivity analysis removing studies judged at overall high risk of bias resulted in no difference between interventions with motivational interviewing and comparators, suggesting risk of bias was high. Certainty of evidence for sedentary time was therefore downgraded two levels owing to very serious unexplained inconsistency, and one level owing to publication bias.

Overall, 97 randomised controlled trials examining the effectiveness of 105 interventions comprising motivational interviewing to increase physical activity were included in this review. The totality of the evidence showed that interventions with motivational interviewing led to a greater increase in total physical activity (an extra 1300 steps/day) and MVPA (an extra 95 min/day) and reductions in sedentary time (50 fewer min/day) compared with comparator interventions. Certainty of the evidence for interventions with motivational interviewing promoting physical activity was low for total physical activity and very low for MVPA and reduction in sedentary time, with few high quality studies.

Effect sizes for studies using device-measured total physical activity and sendentary time outcomes were more modest, and for MVPA were higher than for studies using self-reported outcomes. This finding is consistent with reports that self-reported measures can over-report physical activity levels. 125

We found no evidence of an effect when interventions with motivational interviewing were compared with comparator interventions of similar intensity. Most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, and when these were removed, only the effect on total physical activity remained.

Subgroup analyses helped to contextualise the circumstances when interventions with motivational interviewing might be superior to comparators. The effectiveness of interventions with motivational interviewing diminished with duration of follow-up, with no evidence of a benefit for interventions lasting more than one year. We also found no evidence of differences in any outcomes beyond the end of the active intervention period.

In groups with pre-existing health conditions, interventions with motivational interviewing increased total physical activity and MVPA and reduced sedentary time. However, in general population groups, not selected on the basis of a pre-existing health condition or disease, although interventions with motivational interviewing were effective on total physical activity, we found no evidence to suggest they were effective at increasing MVPA or reducing sedentary time.

Strengths and limitations of this review

To limit bias and minimise confounding, we included only randomised controlled trials, did not exclude studies based on year of publication, and followed established Cochrane methods. 126 Our searches were designed to be comprehensive and therefore included many studies, with interventions of variable type, content, and duration. As a result, whereas previous reviews have had a more targeted approach, we included many more studies in this review. We included studies regardless of the method used to assess physical activity outcomes as long as it quantified physical activity. Furthermore, guided by our patient and public involvement group, who suggested we should make the findings easier to understand, we converted the SMD to more meaningful physical activity outcomes using established methods. 22

Several limitations should also be considered when interpreting the results. Although we systematically reviewed the evidence from randomised controlled trials, it is difficult to isolate the effectiveness of motivational interviewing because it is was almost always included alongside other behavioural components. Value may be had in exploring evidence from other types of study design, which could provide insight into possible explanations or mechanisms for the observed effects.The variability in interventions and comparators likely contributes to the substantial heterogeneity we observed in most analyses. It is also likely, given the breadth of the inclusion criteria for this study, that differences in study populations, interventions, and outcome assessment methods, and other factors such as geographical or temporal differences, contributed to heterogeneity, and it was unlikely our analysis would fully explain these differences.

We found significant evidence of bias in the findings. Our searches were limited to studies published in English, but we only identified four other eligible papers, and given the large number of studies included in this review we believe the exclusion of these papers is not likely to have meaningfully affected the overall findings. Of note, the included studies were undertaken predominately in female participants with overweight or obesity from high income countries, which could limit the generalisability of results reported here to other populations.

Comparison with other studies

Several previous systematic reviews have explored the effects of motivational interviewing on physical activity. 15 127 128 129 The most notable previous systematic review included only eight trials and the meta-analysis reported that there was a very small effect in increasing physical activity levels favouring the interventions with motivational interviewing in people with chronic conditions (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32). 15

One study reported a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions with motivational interviewing for increasing physical activity in older adults. Only three trials with 84 participants were included in that review, and no difference was found between interventions with motivational interviewing and comparators for increasing physical activity (SMD −0.02, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.46, I 2 =16%). 127 Another review included 72 randomised controlled trials exploring the effect of motivational interviewing on a range of health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the only previous review to explore effects of motivational interviewing at different horizon or follow-up time frames. The authors reported a large effect size in favour of interventions including motivational interviewing for improving a composite measure of diet and physical activity (Cohen’s d =0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.16), but the findings from studies targeting diet or physical activity behaviour were based on only four studies and the authors did not explore the effect on physical activity or exercise in itself, nor did they break down the effects of motivational interviewing on diet and exercise outcomes by follow-up time. 129

Previous research suggests that an increase of 1000 steps/day equates to about 10 mins of moderate intensity activity. 130 Here we show that, overall, interventions with motivational interviewing increase physical activity by about 1300 steps/day, or an extra 95 min/day of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity. The mean population average MVPA in England is 118 min/week in men and 80 min/week in women. The low levels of participation in physical activity coupled with longer periods of sedentary time (mean 8.65 h/day), 131 in the population are concerning and may be contributing to adverse health outcomes. 132 133

To realise these health benefits the intervention effect needs to be sustained. We hypothesised that interventions including motivational interviewing may prove more durable than some other interventions. However, as with many other interventions to increase physical activity, effectiveness waned over time. Moreover, we noted that the effects were only observed when interventions with motivational interviewing were compared with a no or minimal intervention comparator. No significant effects were observed when complex interventions with motivational interviewing were compared with interventions of similar intensity but not including motivational interviewing. This suggests the observed effect of motivational interviewing may be attributable to the extent of support provided, rather than a specific effect of motivational interviewing itself.

Interventions with motivational interviewing were effective in people with pre-existing health conditions for all outcomes but were ony effective in the general population for total physical activity. Motivational interviewing requires intensive formal training and lifelong continued professional development to instruct interventionist to deliver the intervention to a satisfactory standard. These findings should therefore sound a note of caution in adopting motivational interviewing as part of routine interventions to increase physical activity given the added costs. Because the findings indicate that interventions with motivational interviewing are effective in promoting physical activity in specific clinical populations, however, it may be cost effective for people who could benefit from short term improvements in physical activity, such as before surgery or during pregnancy.

Other systematic reviews have found similar increases in physical activity to those reported here for less expensive, self-directed interventions, such as wearable devices. 134 135

Conclusions

Despite considerable interest in motivational interviewing as a behaviour change technique and a large number of studies, the certainty of evidence for the effectiveness of interventions with motivational interviewing to increase total physical activity is low and very low for MVPA and sedentary time. Overall, the evidence showed that interventions with motivational interviewing led to increases in physical activity and MVPA and reductions in sedentary time, but the effect diminished over time and did not persist beyond the active intervention period. Effects were largely driven by studies that compared interventions with motivational interviewing versus those with minimal or no intervention comparator. In the small number of studies that compared interventions differing only in the presence of motivational interviewing, evidence of a difference in any physical activity outcome was lacking.

What is already known on this topic

Motivational interviewing is a person centred, behaviour change approach, and it is recommended for interventions to promote health related behaviour change

Previous meta-analyses of small numbers of trials examining the effect of motivational interviewing on physical activity reported that motivational interviewing was superior to comparators in people with chronic health conditions

These reviews could have overestimated effects by comparing motivational interviewing interventions with no or minimal controls and by focusing on effects at the end of the intervention rather than longer term follow-up

What this study adds

Across all studies in this meta-analysis, interventions with motivational interviewing were associated with significant increases in total physical activity (1323 steps/day) and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA, 95/min/week) and reduction in sedentary behaviour (−51 min/day).

Interventions with motivational interviewing were only better than comparators in the short term and no durable effect of motivational interviewing was found beyond the intervention period

There was also no evidence that behavioural interventions with motivational interviewing were any better at increasing physical activity compared with other behavioural interventions of similar intensity that did not include motivational interviewing

Ethics statements

Ethical approval.

Not required.

Data availability statement

The statistical code used in the analysis is available from https://github.com/nerysastbury/MI_SR.git .

Contributors: SZ and DS contributed equally and are joint first authors. NMA, LM, RS, and SAJ conceived the study. DS and NMA developed the search strategy. DS, SZ, MM, GW, AH, PD, MK, and NMA screened and selected studies. DS and SZ performed analyses, with input from NMA. DS and SZ wrote the first draft of the manuscript with critical input from all authors. All authors have read and approved the final submitted version. NMA acts as guarantor. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: LM, RS, SAJ, and NMA were supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Oxford University Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). MK is funded by the NIHR Oxford Health BRC. MM, AH, and PD are funded by the NIHR Applied Research in Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley. GW is funded by a Medical Research Council iCASE PhD studentship with Second Nature as industrial partner. The funders had no role in considering the study design, or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR, or Department of Health and Social Care. All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres at Oxford University Hospitals and Oxford Health, and NIHR Applied Research in Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley for the work reported; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Transparency: The lead author (NMA) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities: We plan to share the findings of this study with academics working in physical activity and behaviour change to enhance the quality of the evidence base. We will also discuss our findings with clinicians and commissioners by presenting at relevant events, publishing companion blogs and/or non-specialist articles, and using social media opportunities.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

• ↵ World Health Organization. Recommended population levels of physical activity for health. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. WHO, Geneva;2010: 60.
• Shiroma EJ ,
• Katzmarzyk PT ,
• Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group
• Ekelund U ,
• Steene-Johannessen J ,
• ↵ World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. WHO, 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128.
• ↵ World Health Organization. Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020. WHO, 2013. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506236.
• ↵ World Health Organization. Global status report on physical activity 2022: country profiles. WHO, 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240064119.
• Hillsdon M ,
• Thorogood M
• Sandbaek A ,
• Lauritzen T ,
• Christensen B
• ↵ Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior . 1991, New York; Guilford Press:348-xvii.
• Miller WR ,
• Yakovenko I ,
• Quigley L ,
• Hemmelgarn BR ,
• Hodgins DC ,
• Knowles L ,
• Anokhina A ,
• Lindson-Hawley N ,
• Thompson TP ,
• O’Halloran PD ,
• Blackstock F ,
• Shields N ,
• Soderlund PD
• van der Wardt V ,
• di Lorito C ,
• Liberati A ,
• Tetzlaff J ,
• Altman DG ,
• PRISMA Group
• ↵ Covidence systematic review software. www.covidence.org .
• Hoffmann TC ,
• Glasziou PP ,
• Boutron I ,
• Sterne JAC ,
• Savović J ,
• ↵ Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.3 (updated February 2022). 2022.
• Kaiser KA ,
• Beasley TM ,
• IntHout J ,
• Ioannidis JPA ,
• Van Hoye K ,
• Wijtzes AI ,
• Lefevre J ,
• De Baere S ,
• Guyatt GH ,
• GRADE Working Group
• Albright CL ,
• Steffen AD ,
• Wilkens LR ,
• Alothman SA ,
• Alshehri MM ,
• Almasud AA ,
• Anderson AS ,
• Craigie AM ,
• Caswell S ,
• Gallant S ,
• Kaleth AS ,
• Bigatti S ,
• Arbillaga-Etxarri A ,
• Gimeno-Santos E ,
• Barberan-Garcia A ,
• ↵ Asvat Patel Y. Motivational Interviewing to Promote Physical Activity in Breast Motivational Interviewing to Promote Physical Activity in Breast Cancer Survivors Cancer Survivors [dissertation]. Department of Psychology, University of South Florida; 2013.
• Aunger JA ,
• Greaves CJ ,
• Asamane EA ,
• Whittaker AC ,
• Benitez A ,
• Locklin CA ,
• Little Village Community Advisory Board
• Barrett S ,
• O’Halloran P ,
• Leonhardt C ,
• Kochen MM ,
• Befort CA ,
• Ellerbeck EF ,
• Sullivan DK ,
• Thomas JL ,
• Ahluwalia JS
• Bennett JA ,
• Winters-Stone K ,
• Vickers K ,
• Novotny PJ ,
• ↵ Berlant N. Increasing adherence to an exercise intervention [dissertation]. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida; 2004.
• Blackford K ,
• Bombardier CH ,
• Cunniffe M ,
• Wadhwani R ,
• Gibbons LE ,
• Brodie DA ,
• Conley KM ,
• Sánchez BN ,
• van Remoortel H ,
• Celano CM ,
• Freedman ME ,
• Harnedy LE ,
• Collins TC ,
• Valverde MG ,
• Parra-Medina D
• Coumans JMJ ,
• Bolman CAW ,
• de Vries NM ,
• van der Wees PJ ,
• Dennett AM ,
• Peiris CL ,
• Ellsworth JS ,
• Weldon AL ,
• Dwinger S ,
• Rezvani F ,
• Kriston L ,
• Herbarth L ,
• Ellingson LD ,
• Lansing JE ,
• DeShaw KJ ,
• Elliot DL ,
• Goldberg L ,
• Breger RK ,
• Pickering MA
• Ferrara A ,
• Hedderson MM ,
• Friederichs SAH ,
• ↵ Frost K. Influence of a motivational exercise counseling intervention on rehabilitation outcomes in individuals with arthritis who received total hip replacement [dissertation]. School of Health and Rehabilitation Science. University of Pittsburgh; 2003.
• Schoenthaler A ,
• Gilbert AL ,
• Ehrlich-Jones L ,
• Gillham S ,
• González-Cutre D ,
• Grischott T ,
• Rosemann T ,
• Neuner-Jehle S
• Groeneveld IF ,
• Proper KI ,
• van der Beek AJ ,
• Hildebrandt VH ,
• van Mechelen W
• Hardcastle SJ ,
• Taylor AH ,
• Bailey MP ,
• Harley RA ,
• ↵ Havenar J. Adapted motivational interviewing for increasing physical activity: A 12 month clinical trial [dissertation]. Arizona State University, 2007.
• Hollis JL ,
• Janssen V ,
• De Gucht V ,
• van Exel H ,
• Knittle K ,
• Hurkmans E ,
• Comerford BP ,
• Koelewijn-van Loon MS ,
• van der Weijden T ,
• Schofield GM ,
• Garrett N ,
• Lakerveld J ,
• Chinapaw MJ ,
• Larsen RT ,
• Korfitsen CB ,
• Andersen HB ,
• Christensen J ,
• Lawton BA ,
• Dowell AC ,
• Lilienthal KR ,
• Pignol AE ,
• Vogeltanz-Holm N
• Chiang SL ,
• Heitkemper MM ,
• ↵ Lindeman, S. Motivational Interviewing as a Supplement to Incentives for Increasing and Maintaining Physical Activity in an Undergraduate Course [dissertation]. Department of Psychology and Counseling, University of Central Arkansas; 2019.
• MacKinnon DP ,
• Thoemmes F ,
• ↵ Mahmood Z. Effects of Motivationally Enhanced Compensatory Cognitive Training on modifiable risk factors for Mild Cognitive Impairment [dissertation]. University of San Diego California/San Diego State University; 2022.
• Marcus BH ,
• Forsyth LH ,
• Roberts MB ,
• Traficante RM
• Napolitano MA ,
• Marques MM ,
• de Gucht V ,
• Mascola AJ ,
• Yiaslas TA ,
• Pedersen SS ,
• Jensen RH ,
• Nooijen CFJ ,
• Bergen MP ,
• Act-Active Research Group
• Nourizadeh R ,
• Farshbaf-Khalili A ,
• Pedersen C ,
• Halvari H ,
• Pellegrini CA ,
• DeVivo KE ,
• Quintiliani LM ,
• Whiteley JA
• Whiteley JA ,
• Murillo J ,
• Dickinson C ,
• Rausch Osthoff AK ,
• Morrin LI ,
• Higginson LA ,
• Reinhardt JA ,
• van der Ploeg HP ,
• Grzegrzulka R ,
• Timperley JG
• Resnicow K ,
• Jackson A ,
• Blissett D ,
• ↵ Scales R. Motivational interviewing and skills-based counseling in cardiac rehabilitation: the Cardiovascular Health Initiative and Lifestyle Education (CHILE) Study [dissertation]. Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of New Mexico; 1998.
• Schwartz HEM ,
• McFeeley BM ,
• Krivanek TJ ,
• Daffner KR ,
• Breckon JD ,
• Copeland RJ
• Selçuk-Tosun A ,
• Sheppard VB ,
• Makambi K ,
• Hurtado-de-Mendoza A ,
• Demark-Wahnefried W ,
• Adams-Campbell L
• Simpson SA ,
• McNamara R ,
• Turner AP ,
• Hartoonian N ,
• Tuvemo Johnson S ,
• Johansson AC ,
• Hellström K
• Valeiro B ,
• Rodríguez E ,
• van Bakel BMA ,
• Kroesen SH ,
• Bakker EA ,
• van Keulen HM ,
• Mesters I ,
• Vlaar EMA ,
• Nierkens V ,
• Nicolaou M ,
• Weinstock J ,
• Pescatello LS ,
• Henderson CE ,
• Harvey JR ,
• Krukowski RA ,
• Prewitt TE ,
• ↵ Whitehead DF. A home-based intervention to promote physical activity in low income African American adults [dissertation]. Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; 2007.
• Nguyen MK ,
• Yamamoto A ,
• Sterne JA ,
• Sutton AJ ,
• Ioannidis JP ,
• Prince SA ,
• Connor Gorber S ,
• ↵ The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-handbook.org .
• Akinrolie O ,
• Hettema J ,
• Marshall SJ ,
• Tudor-Locke CE ,
• Van Dyck D ,
• De Bourdeaudhuij I ,
• Clarke-Cornwell AM ,
• Anderssen SA ,
• ↵ NHS DIgital. Health Survey for England 2019. 15 Dec 2020; https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england .
• Pirbaglou M ,

Journal of Materials Chemistry C

Progress of ce3+/eu2+ doped phosphors for violet chip based full-spectra lighting.

White light-emitting diode (WLED) has been used in various lighting scenes because of its merits as low energy consumption, high brightness, long lifetime, portable size, etc. In a recent development, full-spectra WLED with uniform spectra and a high color rendering index (CRI) attracted more attention. The discovery and design of phosphor materials suitable for full-spectra WLED is a more recent research hotspot. In this review, the evolution of artificial lighting and the requirements for full-spectra WLED fabrication are outlined. The research progress of Ce3+/Eu2+ doped phosphors that can be excited by violet light, including the structural models and spectral regulation are summarized. Secondly, high-performance multi-color phosphors with high quantum efficiency and luminescence thermal stability are screened for full-spectra WLED. Finally, the development prospects and challenges of Ce3+/Eu2+ doped phosphors for full-spectra lighting are demonstrated. This review will not only promote the research of Ce3+/Eu2+ doped phosphors for full-spectra WLED but also contribute to a thorough comprehension of full-spectra lighting. It also avails to develop more Ce3+/Eu2+ doped phosphors with better luminescence properties meeting the full-spectra WLED encapsulation.

• This article is part of the themed collections: Journal of Materials Chemistry C Recent Review Articles , Journal of Materials Chemistry C HOT Papers and Advanced Functional Inorganic Materials for Information Technology and Applications

Transparent peer review

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article.

View this article’s peer review history

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

C. Dou, Z. Song and Q. Liu, J. Mater. Chem. C , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4TC02197E

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements