essay peer review

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

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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 June 11, 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, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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…

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

• 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

Peer review templates, expert examples and free training courses

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to write a constructive peer review is an essential step in helping to safeguard the quality and integrity of published literature. Read on for resources that will get you on the right track, including peer review templates, example reports and the Web of Science™ Academy: our free, online course that teaches you the core competencies of peer review through practical experience ( try it today ).

How to write a peer review

Understanding the principles, forms and functions of peer review will enable you to write solid, actionable review reports. It will form the basis for a comprehensive and well-structured review, and help you comment on the quality, rigor and significance of the research paper. It will also help you identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice.

This may sound daunting but it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of peer review templates, resources and experts out there to help you, including:

Peer review training courses and in-person workshops

• Peer review templates ( found in our Web of Science Academy )
• Expert examples of peer review reports
• Co-reviewing (sharing the task of peer reviewing with a senior researcher)

Other peer review resources, blogs, and guidelines

We’ll go through each one of these in turn below, but first: a quick word on why learning peer review is so important.

Why learn to peer review?

Peer reviewers and editors are gatekeepers of the research literature used to document and communicate human discovery. Reviewers, therefore, need a sound understanding of their role and obligations to ensure the integrity of this process. This also helps them maintain quality research, and to help protect the public from flawed and misleading research findings.

Learning to peer review is also an important step in improving your own professional development.

You’ll become a better writer and a more successful published author in learning to review. It gives you a critical vantage point and you’ll begin to understand what editors are looking for. It will also help you keep abreast of new research and best-practice methods in your field.

We strongly encourage you to learn the core concepts of peer review by joining a course or workshop. You can attend in-person workshops to learn from and network with experienced reviewers and editors. As an example, Sense about Science offers peer review workshops every year. To learn more about what might be in store at one of these, researcher Laura Chatland shares her experience at one of the workshops in London.

There are also plenty of free, online courses available, including courses in the Web of Science Academy such as ‘Reviewing in the Sciences’, ‘Reviewing in the Humanities’ and ‘An introduction to peer review’

The Web of Science Academy also supports co-reviewing with a mentor to teach peer review through practical experience. You learn by writing reviews of preprints, published papers, or even ‘real’ unpublished manuscripts with guidance from your mentor. You can work with one of our community mentors or your own PhD supervisor or postdoc advisor, or even a senior colleague in your department.

Go to the Web of Science Academy

Peer review templates

Peer review templates are helpful to use as you work your way through a manuscript. As part of our free Web of Science Academy courses, you’ll gain exclusive access to comprehensive guidelines and a peer review report. It offers points to consider for all aspects of the manuscript, including the abstract, methods and results sections. It also teaches you how to structure your review and will get you thinking about the overall strengths and impact of the paper at hand.

• Web of Science Academy template (requires joining one of the free courses)
• PLoS’s review template
• Wiley’s peer review guide (not a template as such, but a thorough guide with questions to consider in the first and second reading of the manuscript)

Beyond following a template, it’s worth asking your editor or checking the journal’s peer review management system. That way, you’ll learn whether you need to follow a formal or specific peer review structure for that particular journal. If no such formal approach exists, try asking the editor for examples of other reviews performed for the journal. This will give you a solid understanding of what they expect from you.

Peer review examples

Understand what a constructive peer review looks like by learning from the experts.

Here’s a sample of pre and post-publication peer reviews displayed on Web of Science publication records to help guide you through your first few reviews. Some of these are transparent peer reviews , which means the entire process is open and visible — from initial review and response through to revision and final publication decision. You may wish to scroll to the bottom of these pages so you can first read the initial reviews, and make your way up the page to read the editor and author’s responses.

• Pre-publication peer review: Patterns and mechanisms in instances of endosymbiont-induced parthenogenesis
• Pre-publication peer review: Can Ciprofloxacin be Used for Precision Treatment of Gonorrhea in Public STD Clinics? Assessment of Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility and an Opportunity for Point-of-Care Testing
• Transparent peer review: Towards a standard model of musical improvisation
• Transparent peer review: Complex mosaic of sexual dichromatism and monochromatism in Pacific robins results from both gains and losses of elaborate coloration
• Post-publication peer review: Brain state monitoring for the future prediction of migraine attacks
• Web of Science Academy peer review: Students’ Perception on Training in Writing Research Article for Publication

F1000 has also put together a nice list of expert reviewer comments pertaining to the various aspects of a review report.

Co-reviewing

Co-reviewing (sharing peer review assignments with senior researchers) is one of the best ways to learn peer review. It gives researchers a hands-on, practical understanding of the process.

In an article in The Scientist , the team at Future of Research argues that co-reviewing can be a valuable learning experience for peer review, as long as it’s done properly and with transparency. The reason there’s a need to call out how co-reviewing works is because it does have its downsides. The practice can leave early-career researchers unaware of the core concepts of peer review. This can make it hard to later join an editor’s reviewer pool if they haven’t received adequate recognition for their share of the review work. (If you are asked to write a peer review on behalf of a senior colleague or researcher, get recognition for your efforts by asking your senior colleague to verify the collaborative co-review on your Web of Science researcher profiles).

The Web of Science Academy course ‘Co-reviewing with a mentor’ is uniquely practical in this sense. You will gain experience in peer review by practicing on real papers and working with a mentor to get feedback on how their peer review can be improved. Students submit their peer review report as their course assignment and after internal evaluation receive a course certificate, an Academy graduate badge on their Web of Science researcher profile and is put in front of top editors in their field through the Reviewer Locator at Clarivate.

Here are some external peer review resources found around the web:

• Peer Review Resources from Sense about Science
• Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense about Science
• How to review journal manuscripts by R. M. Rosenfeld for Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
• Ethical guidelines for peer review from COPE
• An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts by Callaham, Schriger & Cooper for Annals of Emergency Medicine (requires Flash or Adobe)
• EQUATOR Network’s reporting guidelines for health researchers

And finally, we’ve written a number of blogs about handy peer review tips. Check out some of our top picks:

• How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know
• Want To Peer Review? Top 10 Tips To Get Noticed By Editors
• Review a manuscript like a pro: 6 tips from a Web of Science Academy supervisor
• How to write a structured reviewer report: 5 tips from an early-career researcher

Want to learn more? Become a master of peer review and connect with top journal editors. The Web of Science Academy – your free online hub of courses designed by expert reviewers, editors and Nobel Prize winners. Find out more today.

Related posts

Unlocking emerging topics in research with research horizon navigator.

Journal Citation Reports 2024 preview: Unified rankings for more inclusive journal assessment

Introducing the Clarivate Academic AI Platform

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

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 . 

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

34 Peer Review

In many situations, you will be required to have at least one of your peers review your essay (and you will, in turn, review at least one peer’s essay). Even if you’re not required to exchange drafts with a peer, it’s essential at some point before you begin editing your paper to have another pair of eyes on your paper. Therefore, if you don’t have a peer review assigned or a draft graded by your instructor prior to submitting a final draft, a good idea is to make an appointment with the Academic Learning Center or the Writing Lab at YC. This is a free service for students, so take advantage of it!

In this video, Dr. Ellen Turner discusses the importance of peer review:

Accepting Reviews

You may receive suggestions from peers, instructors, or tutors. It’s important to approach their suggestions with the right attitude. An important attribute of successful people is being teachable. This means that you take on an attitude of humility–acknowledging that you don’t know everything–and that you are willing to learn from others to improve your work. When you receive suggestions for content changes, try to put aside any tendencies to react defensively, so that you can consider their ideas for revisions with an open mind.

If you are accustomed only to getting feedback from instructors that is accompanied by a grade, you may need to get used to the difference between evaluation and judgment. In college settings, instructors often prefer to intervene most extensively after you have completed an outline or a first draft, with evaluative commentary that tends to be suggestive, forward-looking, and free of a final quantitative judgment (like a grade). If you read your instructors’ feedback in those circumstances as final, you can miss the point of the exercise. You’re supposed to do something with this sort of commentary, not just read it as the justification for a (nonexistent) grade.

Sometimes peers think they’re supposed to “sound like an English teacher” so they fall into the trap of “correcting” your draft, but in most cases, the prompts used in college-level peer reviewing discourage that sort of thing. In many situations, your peers will give you ideas that will add value to your paper, and you will want to include them. In other situations, your peers’ ideas will not really work into the plan you have for your paper. It is not unusual for peers to offer ideas that you may not want to implement. Remember, your peers’ ideas are only suggestions, and it is your essay, and you are the person who will make the final decisions. If your peers happen to be a part of the audience to which you are writing, they can sometimes give you invaluable ideas. And if they’re not, take the initiative to find outside readers who might actually be a part of your audience.

If you decide to visit a tutor to get additional help on your paper, it’s very important to be sure that the tutor understands the assignment information. Make sure you bring a clear copy of the assignment with you so the tutor is aware of what the instructor is asking of you. Don’t expect a tutor to simply tell you what to change or to “fix” your paper for you. If possible, have questions in mind to ask about how you might improve your paper. Remember, the paper is ultimately your responsibility, so it’s up to you whether to take all the advice offered by the tutor.

Giving Reviews

Reading a text as a reviewer should be considered both a privilege and an opportunity. The professional world demands the ability to negotiate ideas and work collaboratively to achieve success, and peer review offers a wonderful way to practice those skills. Peer review, then, offers advantages beyond merely helping a classmate earn a better grade. Peer Review offers an opportunity to apply what students have learned in the role of a teacher. By looking at their peers’ work, a student will better retain what has been learned and become a better writer in the process.

Reviewing Responsibly

As peer reviewers approach a text, they should bring with them several qualities: an ability to remain focused on the task of improving the text; an ability to prioritize the needs of the author; and an ability to provide specific, insightful feedback. Peer reviewers should think critically about how well a text fulfills its purpose in regard to the rhetorical situation of the essay. Focusing on how well a fellow student presents his/her argument should help keep peer reviewers from attacking the author as a human being and should prevent the reviewer from hijacking the text with suggestions that change the stance of the author or the purpose of the writing.

Reviewers should understand that the draft is not final. Since the text will likely be revised, focusing on issues of grammar or spelling is not as useful as focusing on the content and rhetorical strategies of the text. In order of importance, reviewers should focus on issues of content, focus, organization, topic, and purpose.

A good reviewer should offer insight that is grounded in the text. Engaging writing critically requires the ability to point out inconsistencies, to question logic, to seek clarification, and to open the author’s eyes to anything he or she may have taken for granted.

Giving great feedback isn’t just something you’ll need to do for your classes–it’s a skill you need for life, too! Learn more in this TED video:

A Process for Reviewing Peer Papers

If you have not been given specific instructions for completing peer review by your instructor, here are some general guidelines to follow:

1)  First, read the paper all the way through, just as you would a poem or a short story. Appreciate what the writer is trying to say before you begin making comments, either good or bad. If you can’t figure out what the writer’s point is, try reading the paper a second time through. Remember, you are part of the audience for this paper, so it’s important that you ‘get it’!

2) Second, hold the paper up against the assignment criteria. When you feel that you understand what the writer is trying to say, jot down what you think his/her main point is. Take a look at the assignment’s major criteria. For an ad analysis, a reviewer might look for a clear thesis statement that indicates the strategies used by the advertiser, a strong description of the ad, a discussion of the magazine in which the ad was located, a discussion of the strategies used with examples from the ad, etc. Does the writer fulfill the criteria?

3)  Give the writer feedback containing at least three positive comments, as well as pointing out at least three areas that the writer could improve. Remember to include specific examples. Don’t just tell a writer his intro lacks luster…give him some ideas to spice it up. Don’t just say, “I like the paper,” give reasons why. Offering suggestions and reasons help the author to make better decisions about revision.

4) Your review should include the following three items: a recap of the main point, three things you like about the paper, and three areas the paper could be improved. As you do so, remember the golden rule. Speak to others with respect and consideration. Your job is to help them do better, not put them in their place. However, just telling someone they did a great job when you see areas they can improve is not fair. Find a balance between constructive criticism and encouragement.

5)  Remember to focus on revision, not on editing or proofreading.

When you are reviewing a peer’s essay, keep in mind that the author likely knows more about the topic than you do, so don’t question content unless you are certain of your facts. Also, do not suggest changes just because you would do it differently or because you want to give the impression that you are offering ideas. Only suggest changes that you seriously think would make the essay stronger.

In some courses, your instructor might give you a specific format to use to when completing peer reviews. Choose one of three sample essays on this site and complete a peer review either using the three step method above or the table below. Compare your suggestions with those given on the site.

Attributions

• Content adapted from “ Reviewing for a Purpose ” licensed under CC BY NC SA 3.0 .
• Content written by Dr. Karen Palmer and licensed under CC-BY NC SA.
• Rubric created by Dr. Sandi Van Lieu and licensed under CC-BY  NC SA. 

The RoughWriter's Guide Copyright © 2020 by Dr. Karen Palmer and Dr. Sandi Van Lieu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Engaging in Peer Review

There are times when we write in solitary and intend to keep our words private. However, in many cases, we use writing as a way of communicating. We send messages, present and explain ideas, share information, and make arguments. One way to improve the effectiveness of this written communication is through peer-review.

What is Peer-Review?

In the most general of terms, peer-review is the act of having another writer read what you have written and respond in terms of its effectiveness. This reader attempts to identify the writing's strengths and weaknesses, and then suggests strategies for revising it. The hope is that not only will the specific piece of writing be improved, but that future writing attempts will also be more successful. Peer-review happens with all types of writing, at any stage of the process, and with all levels of writers.

Sometimes peer-review is called a writing workshop.

What is a Writing Workshop?

Peer-review sessions are sometimes called writing workshops. For example, students in a writing class might bring a draft of some writing that they are working on to share with either a single classmate or a group, bringing as many copies of the draft as they will need. There is usually a worksheet to fill out or a set questions for each peer-review reader to answer about the piece of writing. The writer might also request that their readers pay special attention to places where he or she would like specific help. An entire class can get together after reading and responding to discuss the writing as a group, or a single writer and reader can privately discuss the response, or the response can be written and shared in that way only.

Whether peer-review happens in a classroom setting or not, there are some common guidelines to follow.

Common Guidelines for Peer-Review

While peer-review is used in multiple contexts, there are some common guidelines to follow in any peer-review situation.

If You are the Writer

If you are the writer, think of peer-review as a way to test how well your writing is working. Keep an open mind and be prepared for criticism. Even the best writers have room for improvement. Even so, it is still up to you whether or not to take the peer-review reader's advice. If more than one person reads for you, you might receive conflicting responses, but don't panic. Consider each response and decide for yourself if you should make changes and what those changes will be. Not all the advice you get will be good, but learning to make revision choices based on the response is part of becoming a better writer.

If You are the Reader

As a peer-review reader, you will have an opportunity to practice your critical reading skills while at the same time helping the writer improve their writing skills. Specifically, you will want to do as follows:

Read the draft through once

Start by reading the draft through once, beginning to end, to get a general sense of the essay as a whole. Don't write on the draft yet. Use a piece of scratch paper to make notes if needed.

Write a summary

After an initial reading, it is sometimes helpful to write a short summary. A well written essay should be easy to summarize, so if writing a summary is difficult, try to determine why and share that with the writer. Also, if your understanding of the writer's main idea(s) turns out to be different from what the writer intended, that will be a place they can focus their revision efforts.

Focus on large issues

Focus your review on the larger writing issues. For example, the misplacement of a few commas is less important than the reader's ability to understand the main point of the essay. And yet, if you do notice a recurring problem with grammar or spelling, especially to the extent that it interferes with your ability to follow the essay, make sure to mention it.

Be constructive

Be constructive with your criticisms. A comment such as "This paragraph was boring" isn't helpful. Remember, this writer is your peer, so treat him/her with the respect and care that they deserve. Explain your responses. "I liked this part" or "This section doesn't work" isn't enough. Keep in mind that you are trying to help the writer revise, so give him/her enough information to be able to understand your responses. Point to specific places that show what you mean. As much as possible, don't criticize something without also giving the writer some suggestion for a possible solution. Be specific and helpful.

Be positive

Don't focus only on the things that aren't working, but also point out the things that are.

With these common guidelines in mind, here are some specific questions that are useful when doing peer-review.

Questions to Use

When doing peer-review, there are different ways to focus a response. You can use questions that are about the qualities of an essay or the different parts of an essay.

Questions to Ask about the Qualities of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the qualities of an essay. Such qualities would be:

Organization

• Is there a clearly stated purpose/objective?
• Are there effective transitions?
• Are the introduction and conclusion focused on the main point of the essay?
• As a reader, can you easily follow the writer's flow of ideas?
• Is each paragraph focused on a single idea?
• At any point in the essay, do you feel lost or confused?
• Do any of the ideas/paragraphs seem out of order, too early or too late to be as effective as they could?

Development and Support

• Is each main point/idea made by the writer clearly developed and explained?
• Is the support/evidence for each point/idea persuasive and appropriate?
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?
• Is all evidence adequately cited?
• Are the topic and tone of the essay appropriate for the audience?
• Are the sentences and word choices varied?

Grammar and Mechanics

• Does the writer use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling?
• Are there any issues with any of these elements that make the writing unreadable or confusing?

Revision Strategy Suggestions

• What are two or three main revision suggestions that you have for the writer?

Questions to Ask about the Parts of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the parts of an essay. Such parts would be:

Introduction

• Is there an introduction?
• Is it effective?
• Is it concise?
• Is it interesting?
• Does the introduction give the reader a sense of the essay's objective and entice the reader to read on?
• Does it meet the objective stated in the introduction?
• Does it stay focused on this objective or are there places it strays?
• Is it organized logically?
• Is each idea thoroughly explained and supported with good evidence?
• Are there transitions and are they effective?
• Is there a conclusion?
• Does it work?

Peer-Review Online

Peer-review doesn't happen only in classrooms or in face-to-face situations. A writer can share a text with peer-review readers in the context of a Web classroom. In this context, the writer's text and the reader's response are shared electronically using file-sharing, e-mail attachments, or discussion forums/message boards.

When responding to a document in these ways, the specific method changes because the reader can't write directly on the document like they would if it were a paper copy. It is even more important in this context to make comments and suggestions clear by thoroughly explaining and citing specific examples from the text.

When working with an electronic version of a text, such as an e-mail attachment, the reader can open the document or copy/paste the text in Microsoft Word, or other word-processing software. In this way, the reader can add his or her comments, save and then send the revised document back to the writer, either through e-mail, file sharing, or posting in a discussion forum.

The reader's overall comments can be added either before or after the writer's section of text. If all the comments will be included at the end of the original text, it is still a good idea to make a note in the beginning directing the writer's attention to the end of the document. Specific comments can be inserted into appropriate places in the document, made clear by using all capital letters enclosed with parenthesis. Some word-processing software also has a highlighting feature that might be helpful.

Benefits of Peer Review

Peer-review has a reflexive benefit. Both the writer and the peer-review reader have something to gain. The writer profits from the feedback they get. In the act of reviewing, the peer-review reader further develops his/her own revision skills. Critically reading the work of another writer enables a reader to become more able to identify, diagnose, and solve some of their own writing issues.

Peer Review Worksheets

Here are a few worksheets that you can print out and use for a peer-review session.

Parts of an Essay

• My audience is:
• My purpose is:
• The main point I want to make in this text is:
• One or two things that I would appreciate your comments on are:
• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text. Do you agree with the writer's assessment of the text's main idea?
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Refer to specific places in their text, citing examples of what you mean. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is it effective? Concise? Interesting?
• Is there a conclusion? Does it work?

Finally, what are two or three revision suggestions you have for the writer?

Qualities of an Essay

• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text.
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?Is all evidence adequately cited?

Salahub, Jill . (2007). Peer Review. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=43

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.25(3); 2014 Oct

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Jacalyn kelly.

1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tara Sadeghieh

Khosrow adeli.

2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article.

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ( 2 ). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician ( 2 ). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ( 2 ).

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public ( 3 ). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ( 3 ). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ( 3 ). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ( 4 ). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 ( 5 ), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ( 6 ). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author.” ( 7 ). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions ( 6 ).

Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ( 7 ). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( 8 ). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1 ). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

Overview of the review process

When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ( 9 ). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1 .

WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?

Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ( 7 ). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?

Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions ( 11 ). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ( 5 ).

ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review ( 12 ). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper ( 12 ), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ( 12 ).

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed ( 13 ). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.

THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.

Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ( 14 ).

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ( 14 ). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ( 15 ). The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ( 15 ). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ( 15 ). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation ( 15 ). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant ( 15 ). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies ( 15 ). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research ( 15 ). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.

The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication,

and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field ( 16 ) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2 .

How a peer review evaluates a manuscript

To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ( 2 ). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors ( 2 ). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite ( 2 ). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ( 2 ). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value ( 12 ). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ( 7 ).

Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ( 7 ). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ( 2 ). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ( 2 ). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first ( 2 ).

Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ( 2 ). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea ( 12 ), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ( 7 ). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ( 2 ).

Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ( 17 ). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ( 17 ). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors ( 17 ). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ( 18 ). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher ( 18 ). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ( 17 ). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality ( 17 ).

In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ( 10 ). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review ( 7 ). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ( 19 ). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ( 19 ). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print ( 19 ). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists ( 19 ). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner ( 20 ). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ( 21 ). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes ( 21 ). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.

JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES

Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ( 7 ). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review ( 7 ). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ( 7 ).

SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ ( 7 ). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ ( 7 ). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ( 7 ).

HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject ( 22 ):

1) Be professional

Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.

2) Be pleasant

If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.

3) Read the invite

When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.

4) Be helpful

Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective.

5) Be scientific

The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

6) Be timely

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

7) Be realistic

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.

8) Be empathetic

Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.

Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.

10) Be organised

A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.

In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ( 11 ). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively ( 11 ). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process ( 11 ). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ( 11 ).

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about ( 23 ). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor ( 23 ). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ( 23 ). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ( 23 ). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers ( 23 ).

COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ( 24 ). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ( 24 ). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ( 24 ). Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers ( 24 ). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ( 24 ). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ( 24 ). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ( 24 ). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.

CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW

A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ ( 25 ). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ( 7 ). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ( 26 ). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers ( 26 ). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer ( 26 ). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ( 26 ). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php ( 26 ).

Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ ( 27 ). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue ( 27 ).

It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ( 28 ). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ( 28 ). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ( 29 ). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ( 29 ). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research ( 29 ). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ( 29 ). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review ( 30 ).

Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ( 31 ). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue ( 32 ). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ( 32 ). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper ( 32 ). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW

F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ( 32 ). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ( 32 ). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first ( 32 ). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ( 32 ).

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences ( 33 ). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ( 34 ). It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication ( 34 ). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ( 34 ). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish ( 34 ).

Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system ( 35 ). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ( 35 ). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again ( 35 ). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years ( 35 ). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ( 35 ). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ( 35 ). The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium ( 35 ). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate ( 35 ). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ( 35 ). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ( 35 ). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ( 35 ). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ( 35 ). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected ( 35 ). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers ( 35 ).

According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ( 32 ). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection ( 32 ). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled ( 32 ). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ( 35 ). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact ( 35 ). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review ( 35 ).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.

Table of Contents

Collaboration, information literacy, writing process, peer review – how to make the most of peer review.

• © 2023 by Joseph M. Moxley - University of South Florida

Peer Review , the practice of receiving and providing critiques to improve documents , applications, and services, has been proven to be a valuable tool for writers and critics alike. As summarized below, research highlights the transformative impact of peer review on both the quality of work and the development of essential interpersonal competencies highly sought after in the business realm. Discover how engaging in peer review can enhance your writing prowess and foster valuable skills for professional success.

What is Peer Review?

Peer Review refers to the practice of giving and getting critiques from others in order to improve something–such as a text , application, service. Research, as summarized below, has found that peer review

Peer review not only minimizes bias and improves the quality of work, but also signals the authority of the evaluated text. This process, which involves having multiple people evaluate a piece of work, aims to provide different perspectives and counterbalance individual interpretations. Acknowledging that evaluations often rely on individual judgment, which is inherently subjective and susceptible to personal bias, the peer review process strives to diminish this subjectivity by incorporating multiple perspectives. These evaluators collectively challenge individual biases, providing a more comprehensive and objective assessment. The resulting peer-reviewed work, having stood up to rigorous scrutiny, thus gains a measure of authority in its respective field.

The peer review process manifests differently across various fields, each with its unique considerations. In academic research, for instance, it is used to validate the quality of scholarly articles before they’re published. Experts in the relevant field scrutinize the research methodologies and findings to ensure they are robust and reliable. In the corporate world, peer review might involve colleagues or superiors evaluating a project or proposal, offering feedback to improve the final output and ensure it aligns with company standards–and the needs and expectations of the client. Within the realm of software development, it takes the form of code review where fellow developers inspect code for errors or inefficiencies. In educational settings, students often engage in peer review to critique and learn from each other’s work. Despite the varying forms, the core of peer review remains consistent: using collective wisdom to counterbalance individual bias, improve quality, and convey authority.

Related Concepts: Authority; Collaboration ; Interpersonal Competency ; Collaborative Problem Solving; Teamwork

Types of Peer Reviews

The type of peer review, the number of people on a review panel, and the goals of the writer seeking the review are somewhat dependent on the importance of a decision.

In instances where the outcome will have significant implications, peer review tends to involve multiple anonymous reviewers. For example, when departments of admission at colleges and universities screen applications, they typically ask multiple individuals to review, rank, and vote on applications. Similarly, when undergraduates submit an honors thesis, it is common to have three reviews. At the graduate level, across academic disciplines, multiple reviewers are typically involved in critical milestones such as the thesis proposal or defense.

Collaborative Peer Review

Focuses on collaboration and constructive feedback from multiple critics to improve the work during the developmental stages–including prewriting and drafting .

Goal: Enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the project through collaboration and mutual learning.

Formative Peer Review

Provides feedback and guidance from one or more critics to support the writer’s growth and learning.

Goal: Facilitating skill development and improvement through constructive feedback.

Summative Peer Review

Evaluates the final product against predefined criteria or standards.

Goal: Making decisions regarding publication, grading, funding, or other significant outcomes based on the overall quality and alignment with standards.

Directed Peer Review

Reviewers follow specific guidelines or processes when providing feedback or assessing work.

Goal: Focusing on specific aspects or criteria as directed, such as revision , clarity , or brevity .

Examples of Directed Peer Reviews

• Guide to Structured Revision — this is an example of a structured approach to substantive revision . Teachers or managers could ask you to follow a structured approach like this one in order to take the emotion out of revision and editing .
• Edit for Clarity — this structured exercise focuses on checking texts for brevity .

Open Peer Review or Transparent Peer Review

Reviewers openly identify themselves when providing feedback or evaluating others’ work.

Goal: Promoting transparency, accountability, and direct engagement among peers in work settings.

Problems with Peer Review

Complaints from students:.

Bias and Inconsistency:

• Concerns about reviewers holding personal biases that can influence evaluations, potentially favoring or discriminating against certain methodologies, perspectives, or individuals.
• Frustration with the inconsistency in the quality and rigor of reviews, which hinders students’ ability to assess their work accurately.

Lack of Constructive Feedback:

• Complaints about the absence of actionable suggestions for improvement in peer reviews.
• Frustration when reviewers solely focus on pointing out flaws without providing clear guidance for enhancement.
• Perception that engaging with peer feedback might lead to going down a “rabbit hole” without significant improvement to their grades.

Desire for a Good Grade:

• Priority given to receiving a good grade on assignments.
• Concerns that engaging in peer review may consume time without directly contributing to improved grades.
• Questioning the value of peer review if it does not have a tangible impact on their overall academic performance.

Perception of Unfairness:

• Feeling that the peer review process may lack fairness, with higher expectations for certain institutions or individuals.
• Doubts about equal opportunities for all scholars due to potential biases in the evaluation process.

Feeling of Disparity for Better Writers:

• Better writers in the class may feel like they are contributing more than they are receiving in peer review.
• Concerns that their efforts are not equally matched by their peers’ contributions.
• Encouraging students to take a long-term view, understanding that engaging in peer review allows them to practice their reviewing skills, enhance their ability to provide constructive feedback, and develop important interpersonal competencies.

Complaints from Teachers:

Time Constraints:

• Challenges in managing the time-consuming nature of the peer review process within limited timeframes.
• Potential delays in providing timely feedback due to lengthy review timelines.
• Impediments to collaboration opportunities and the timely dissemination of research findings.

Workload Balancing:

• Difficulties in ensuring an equitable distribution of reviews among students.
• Balancing the workload, especially in larger classes or across multiple sections.
• Ensuring each student receives a fair number of reviews and feedback.

Training and Consistency:

• Concerns about varying levels of expertise among student reviewers.
• Inconsistencies in evaluations and insufficient feedback due to inadequate training or guidelines.
• Challenges in relying on peer reviews as a reliable assessment tool.

Complaints from Professional Writers:

Delays in Publication:

• Reliance on timely publication for reputation building and career advancement.
• Frustration with potential delays caused by lengthy peer review timelines.
• Negative impact on collaboration opportunities and the overall impact of the research.

Lack of Expertise:

• Doubts about the expertise of reviewers, particularly in specialized or niche fields.
• Concerns that evaluations may not accurately reflect the quality or significance of the work.
• Desire for knowledgeable reviewers who can provide insightful feedback.

Revision Fatigue:

• Mental and emotional exhaustion caused by repeated revisions requested by multiple reviewers.
• Overwhelm stemming from the iterative nature of the peer review process.
• Potential hindrance to progress on other projects due to extensive revisions.

Why Does Peer Review Matter?

Peer review is of paramount importance as it serves:

• Experts critically review research, methods, results, recommendations, and conclusions.
• Ensures meticulous vetting of new knowledge claims.
• Upholds integrity and credibility of scholarly discourse.
• Maintains standards of the scientific community.
• Learning is social, and peer responses enhance writers’ texts.
• Saves time and improves writing clarity .
• Early reviews aid invention and rhetorical reasoning .
• Fine-tunes writer’s sense of audience and transitions from writer-based to reader-based prose .
• Students conduct peer reviews in high school and college, especially in composition, creative writing, professional writing, and technical writing courses.
• Ensures alignment with readers’ expectations
• Validates scholarly rigor
• Contributes to knowledge advancement.

What should I do if the paper has loads and loads of errors?

When working on an article undergoing peer review, it’s important to prioritize addressing the bigger picture issues rather than focusing solely on editing for minor errors. Instead, direct your attention to revision concerns, such as the thesis , overall structure , voice , tone , and substance of the article. Consider the following steps:

• Examine the article’s organization and flow. Ensure that the sections and paragraphs are logically sequenced and connected. Make revisions to clarify the main points and enhance the overall coherence of the article.
• Pay attention to the consistency and appropriateness of the article’s voice and tone. Aim for a professional and engaging tone that aligns with the intended audience and purpose of the article. Revise sections where the voice may be inconsistent or where the tone needs adjustment to better convey the intended message.
• Review the central thesis or argument of the article. Make sure it is clearly stated and well-supported by evidence or research. Revise and refine the thesis or argument as needed to ensure its strength and relevance.
• Evaluate the substance and depth of the article’s content. Ensure that the arguments are well-developed, supported by credible evidence, and relevant to the topic. Add or strengthen supporting evidence where necessary to bolster the article’s overall substance.
• Seek Feedback from Peers or Mentors: Share the article with trusted colleagues, mentors, or experts in the field for feedback. Request their insights on the bigger picture issues, such as clarity, coherence, and the strength of the arguments. Use their feedback to guide further revisions and improvements.

Once you have addressed these broader concerns and have a well-structured and substantively strong article, you can then shift your focus to editing for grammar, punctuation, and other minor errors. Prioritizing revision and addressing the bigger picture issues will ensure that your article is compelling, coherent, and effectively conveys your ideas to readers.

What is a Peer Reviewed Article? Book? Website?

Typically, a peer reviewed article is an article that has been reviewed by at least two people who are subject matter experts on the topic the author is addressing.

Are Peer Reviewed Works More Authoritative Than Non Peer Reviewed Works?

Works that have been peer reviewed are generally more authoritative than works that are self published. In academic and scientific journals, journal editors give reviewers guidelines to follow when critiquing submissions. For instance, reviewers may be asked to give feedback

• on whether the document is informed by existing scholarship, especially past articles published in the journal
• on the research methodology
• on the style of writing .

It’s not uncommon for authors to need to revise articles multiple times before they pass peer review and the article is published.

That said, as addressed above, there are different types of feedback, and not all feedback is created equal. You cannot necessarily assume that a peer-reviewed text is authoritative. There are instances, for example, when reviewers may have had a conflict of interest or some sort of bias that interfered with their interpretation and critique . Over time, many peer-reviewed articles have been debunked so whereas peer review is a signal of authority , it’s not a guarantee.

Critical readers are always vigilant about questioning the currency , relevance , authority, accuracy , and purpose behind an author’s presentation of information .

When During Composing is Peer Reviewed Advised?

Traditionally, writers, speakers, knowledge workers wait to receive peer reviews once their texts are fairly well developed. However, when possible, you may find it strategic to seek feedback sooner rather than later. After all, peer review can inform rhetorical analysis (especially audience awareness) and rhetorical reasoning .

How Can I Get the Most from Peer Review as an Author?

• Approach peer review with an open mind and a willingness to learn and improve. Recognize that constructive criticism and diverse perspectives can help refine your work and elevate its quality.
• When submitting your manuscript, provide guidelines or a brief note to reviewers outlining specific aspects or areas you would like them to focus on. Clearly stating your expectations can guide reviewers and ensure their feedback aligns with your objectives.
• Recognize that peer review is meant to provide constructive feedback aimed at strengthening your work. Approach reviewer comments with a receptive attitude, even if they challenge your initial assumptions. Consider each suggestion carefully and evaluate how it can enhance your manuscript.
• When addressing reviewer comments, respond thoughtfully and respectfully. Provide detailed explanations for any revisions made and highlight how you have addressed their concerns. Clearly articulate the changes made to demonstrate your attentiveness to their feedback.
• If any reviewer comments are unclear or require further explanation, don’t hesitate to seek clarification. Engage in a respectful dialogue with reviewers to ensure you fully understand their suggestions and can implement them effectively.
• Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the peer review process. Avoid becoming defensive or dismissive of critical feedback. Remember that constructive criticism is intended to help you improve, and maintaining a professional approach will strengthen your reputation among reviewers and editors.
• Actively participate in peer review activities within your academic or professional community. By engaging in reciprocal peer review, you contribute to the development of a supportive environment and gain insights into the reviewing process from the perspective of a reviewer.
• Take the opportunity to learn from the reviews of others. Reading and analyzing peer reviews of similar manuscripts can provide valuable insights into common pitfalls, recurring feedback themes, and effective strategies for revision.
• Peer review is an iterative process. Use the feedback received to refine and enhance your work continually. Embrace the mindset of ongoing improvement, recognizing that each round of peer review offers an opportunity to strengthen your manuscript.
• Whether your manuscript is accepted or rejected, view each outcome as a learning experience. Celebrate successes, but also reflect on rejection to identify areas for improvement. Use the feedback provided to refine your work for future submissions.

Appendix – Empirical Studies on Peer Review

Below are some informal notes from research on peer review. (My apolgies this isnt up-to-date)

Meta-analyses of peer review

Related Articles:

Online Forums: Responding Thoughtfully

Recommended.

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Speech & Writing

Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing

Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact

Suggested edits.

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• Jennifer Janechek

Assigned a discussion post for a class? Follow these strategies to create a professional rhetorical stance in your posts.

Featured Articles

Peer Review

About this Strategy Guide

This strategy guide explains how you can employ peer review in your classroom, guiding students as they offer each other constructive feedback to improve their writing and communication skills.

Research Basis

Strategy in practice, related resources.

Peer review refers to the many ways in which students can share their creative work with peers for constructive feedback and then use this feedback to revise and improve their work. For the writing process, revision is as important as drafting, but students often feel they cannot let go of their original words. By keeping an audience in mind and participating in focused peer review interactions, students can offer productive feedback, accept constructive criticism, and master revision. This is true of other creative projects, such as class presentations, podcasts, or blogs. Online tools can also help to broaden the concept of “peers.” Real literacy happens in a community of people who can make meaningful connections. Peer review facilitates the type of social interaction and collaboration that is vital for student learning.

Peer review can be used for different class projects in a variety of ways:

• Teach students to use these three steps to give peer feedback: Compliments, Suggestions, and Corrections (see the Peer Edit with Perfection! Handout ). Explain that starting with something positive makes the other person feel encouraged. You can also use Peer Edit With Perfection Tutorial to walk through the feedback process with your students.
• Provide students with sentence starter templates, such as, “My favorite part was _________ because __________,” to guide students in offering different types of feedback. After they start with something positive, have students point out areas that could be improved in terms of content, style, voice, and clarity by using another sentence starter (“A suggestion I can offer for improvement is ___________.”). The peer editor can mark spelling and grammar errors directly on the piece of writing.
• Teach students what constructive feedback means (providing feedback about areas that need improvement without criticizing the person). Feedback should be done in an analytical, kind way. Model this for students and ask them to try it. Show examples of vague feedback (“This should be more interesting.”) and clear feedback (“A description of the main character would help me to imagine him/her better.”), and have students point out which kind of feedback is most useful. The Peer Editing Guide offers general advice on how to listen to and receive feedback, as well as how to give it.
• For younger students, explain that you need helpers, so you will show them how to be writing teachers for each other. Model peer review by reading a student’s piece aloud, then have him/her leave the room while you discuss with the rest of the class what questions you will ask to elicit more detail. Have the student return, and ask those questions. Model active listening by repeating what the student says in different words. For very young students, encourage them to share personal stories with the class through drawings before gradually writing their stories.
• Create a chart and display it in the classroom so students can see the important steps of peer editing. For example, the steps might include: 1. Read the piece, 2. Say what you like about it, 3. Ask what the main idea is, 4. Listen, 5. Say “Add that, please” when you hear a good detail. For pre-writers, “Add that, please” might mean adding a detail to a picture. Make the chart gradually longer for subsequent sessions, and invite students to add dialogue to it based on what worked for them.
• Incorporate ways in which students will review each other’s work when you plan projects. Take note of which students work well together during peer review sessions for future pairings. Consider having two peer review sessions for the same project to encourage more thought and several rounds of revision.
• Have students review and comment on each other’s work online using Nicenet , a class blog, or class website.
• Have students write a class book, then take turns bringing it home to read. Encourage them to discuss the writing process with their parents or guardians and explain how they offered constructive feedback to help their peers.

Using peer review strategies, your students can learn to reflect on their own work, self-edit, listen to their peers, and assist others with constructive feedback. By guiding peer editing, you will ensure that your students’ work reflects thoughtful revision.

• Lesson Plans
• Strategy Guides

Using a collaborative story written by students, the teacher leads a shared-revising activity to help students consider content when revising, with students participating in the marking of text revisions.

After analyzing Family Pictures/Cuadros de Familia by Carmen Lomas Garza, students create a class book with artwork and information about their ancestry, traditions, and recipes, followed by a potluck lunch.

Students are encouraged to understand a book that the teacher reads aloud to create a new ending for it using the writing process.

While drafting a literary analysis essay (or another type of argument) of their own, students work in pairs to investigate advice for writing conclusions and to analyze conclusions of sample essays. They then draft two conclusions for their essay, select one, and reflect on what they have learned through the process.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

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

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

What is peer review?

Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.

Elsevier relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them.

Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions opens in new tab/window of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process opens in new tab/window under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority of the research community still believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation. This opinion was endorsed by the outcome of a survey Elsevier and Sense About Science conducted in 2009 opens in new tab/window and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly organization surveys. Furthermore, a  2015 survey by the Publishing Research Consortium opens in new tab/window , saw 82% of researchers agreeing that “without peer review there is no control in scientific communication.”

To learn more about peer review, visit Elsevier’s free e-learning platform  Researcher Academy opens in new tab/window and see our resources below.

The peer review process

Types of peer review.

Peer review comes in different flavours. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages, and often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community. Before submitting or reviewing a paper, you must therefore check which type is employed by the journal so you are aware of the respective rules. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office directly.  

Single anonymized review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymized review include:

Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions , as the reviewers will not be influenced by potential criticism from the authors.

Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.

Double anonymized review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, such as on author's gender, country of origin, academic status, or previous publication history.

Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our  double-anonymized peer review guidelines .

Triple anonymized review

With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous to the author, and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in a way to minimize any potential bias towards the authors. However, it should be noted that: 

The complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable.

As with double anonymized review, there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly identify the author(s) from their writing style, subject matter, citation patterns, or other methodologies.

Open review

Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:

Publication of reviewers’ names on the article page 

Publication of peer review reports alongside the article, either signed or anonymous 

Publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article 

Publication of the paper after pre-checks and opening a discussion forum to the community who can then comment (named or anonymous) on the article 

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect ( example opens in new tab/window ).

Read more about the experiment

More transparent peer review

Transparency is the key to trust in peer review and as such there is an increasing call towards more  transparency around the peer review process . In an effort to promote transparency in the peer review process, many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the handling editor of the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details about the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance. Furthermore, in order to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers about the editor’s decision and their peers’ recommendations. 

Article transfer service: sharing reviewer comments

Elsevier authors may be invited to  transfer  their article submission from one journal to another for free if their initial submission was not successful. 

As a referee, your review report (including all comments to the author and editor) will be transferred to the destination journal, along with the manuscript. The main benefit is that reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals. 

Tools and resources

Interesting reads.

Chapter 2 of Academic and Professional Publishing, 2012, by Irene Hames in 2012 opens in new tab/window

"Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Perspectives in Publishing No 2, August 2004, by Adrian Mulligan opens in new tab/window

“The history of the peer-review process” Trends in Biotechnology, 2002, by Ray Spier opens in new tab/window

Reviewers’ Update articles

Peer review using today’s technology

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni

How face-to-face peer review can benefit authors and journals alike

Innovation in peer review: introducing “volunpeers”

Results masked review: peer review without publication bias

Elsevier Researcher Academy modules

The certified peer reviewer course opens in new tab/window

Transparency in peer review opens in new tab/window

Make your essay memorable to admissions

Submit an essay

Choose who you want an essay review from.

Peer review

Peer review community, expert review.

Daniel Berkowitz

Sara Larner

Denise Haile

Chinaza Ruth Okonkwo

Craig Aimar

Denise Karp

Robbie Herbst

Christopher Kilner

Elias Miller

Veronica Prout

Sophie Alina

Robert Carlson

Adrian Russian

Subha Subramanian

Jacquada Gray

Lori Zomback

Joseph Recupero

Priya Desai

Emily Kramer

Olga Ivleva

Ethan Glasserman

Stephanie Vitanzo

Alexandra Johnson

Emily Brother

Gabe Henry Woody

Pascale Bradley

Abby Purfeerst

Shane Niesen

Jonathan Sung

Review options, specialties, what students are saying, peer review, college essay guy, how it works, differentiating yourself is more important than ever, review a peer essay.

• 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

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Elsevier journal issues 73 expressions of concern for manipulated peer review

An Elsevier journal has expressed concern over 73 papers with evidence of manipulated peer-review and rigged citations.  

Last July, we reported that Masoud Afrand , a former member of the editorial board of Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements , had been linked to paper mill activity. At the time, Alexander Cheng, the journal’s editor in chief said Afrand had been asked to step down due to “unethical publication conduct.” (For other coverage of the journal since then, see this post by Maarten van Kampen and Alexander Magazinov.)

Cheng told Retraction Watch the journal is investigating the “temporary” expressions of concern. “Findings will be published, and actions will be taken, once investigations are completed,” he said.

The 73 notices state that the “editors are investigating the article, including contacting the authors, in line with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and Elsevier’s policies. The Expression of Concern will remain appended to the article until the investigation has been completed.” 

Although the articles involve many different authors, three researchers appear repeatedly. Mohammad S. Sajadi , a professor of nutrition at  Cihan University in Erbil, Iraq, is an author on 24 papers published in the journal – 16 of which are now marked with expressions of concern and one of which has been retracted. According to Clarivate’s Web of Science, Sajadi’s work has garnered more than 10,000 citations. 

Quynh Hoang Le , of Duy Tan University in Da Nang, Vietnam, has published 11 papers in the journal, of which two have been retracted and nine are flagged with an expression of concern. Mohammed A. Albedah , an assistant professor of material science at Majmaah University in Al Majma’ah, Saudi Arabia, published three papers, all of which are now marked with expressions of concern. None of the authors have responded to our request for comment. 

Elsevier is “conducting a full investigation and cannot comment any further until the investigations are complete,” a company spokesperson said.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a  tax-deductible contribution to support our work , subscribe to our free  daily digest   or  paid weekly update ,  follow us  on Twitter , like us  on Facebook , or add us to your  RSS reader . If you find a retraction that’s  not in The Retraction Watch Database , you can  let us know here . For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected] .

Share this:

5 thoughts on “elsevier journal issues 73 expressions of concern for manipulated peer review”.

Relevant link: ForBetterScience

Maybe the RW authors can better do this citing in the body of the article. I believe this is the third comment of this type in less than two weeks.

My linking doesn’t work well. Attempt 2:

https://forbetterscience.com/2024/04/02/karimipour-saga-i-setting-boundaries/

I’m confused by the reporting here. Didn’t the EiC himself comment on RW previously that “His [Arfand’s] editorial conduct has been honorable, and I find no fault in it.” [1]? Why didn’t RW ask the EiC about the contradiction between his comments posted on RW on July 17, 2023 at 12:05 pm and the ones provided for this story?

References: [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07/11/editorial-board-member-dropped-from-journal-site-after-retraction-watch-undark-report-links-him-to-paper-mill/#comment-2175490

Rereading the old stories on RW, it appears that the EiC is claiming (in Ref. [1] above) that RW accused Afrand of “unethical publication conduct,” (full quote is “posting at the Retraction Watch about one of its editorial board members, Masoud Afrand, accusing him of unethical publication conduct”) but the EiC “find[s] no fault in” Afrand’s conduct.

So, the quotes in this story above seem jumbled up historically and factually, and should be corrected.

I would love to know what the EiC’s actual position is on the current expressions of concern.

Alternatively, if there are no issues with the present reporting, and the EiC has told RW that “Afrand had been asked to step down due to “unethical publication conduct”,” then he has contradicted his own comments in Ref. [1], in which he forcefully argues that there’s no fault in Afrand’s conduct and states that “The journal regrets that due to the bad publicity, justified or unjustified, we have asked Afrand to step down.”.

To summarize my point and source of confusion: the EiC’s own published comment on RW claims that Afrand had been asked to step down due to “bad publicity”.

So the readers are owed an explanation from the EiC about which is it, and if he finds no fault with this kind of behavior, how did the present expressions of concern come about? Were they driven by Elsevier staff if the EiC has stated that he himself “do[es] not intend to investigate” [2] matters of questionable citation patterns in the journal — an issue that appears connected with the present expressions of concern, per the story above.

References: [2] https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07/11/editorial-board-member-dropped-from-journal-site-after-retraction-watch-undark-report-links-him-to-paper-mill/#comment-2176087

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

How different are preprints from their published versions? 2 studies have some answers

Both studies find that most COVID-19 research papers don’t drastically change between the time they are posted on a preprint server and when they're published in an academic journal.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Naseem S. Miller, The Journalist's Resource February 2, 2022

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/media/two-studies-examine-preprints/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Two new papers, published on Feb. 1 in PLOS Biology, add to the growing body of research that’s attempting to measure how much research papers change between the time they’re posted by authors on preprint servers to when they’re peer reviewed and published in an academic journal.

Both studies find that most COVID-19 research papers don’t drastically change, but one of the studies also shows that about 1 in 5 COVID-19 preprints do have major changes in their conclusions by the time they’re published, a reminder for journalists to be careful and critical when covering scientific studies.

One study , led by Liam Brierley , an epidemiologist and statistician at the University of Liverpool, manually compares 184 life science preprints with their published versions. It finds that for most preprints only minor changes were made to the conclusions in the abstracts of their published version. But it also finds that 17% of COVID-19 preprints had major changes in the conclusion of their abstracts when published. That’s compared with 7% studies that were not about COVID-19.

The other study , led by David Nicholson , a doctoral candidate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, uses machine learning and text analysis to explore the relationships between nearly 18,000 life science preprints and their published versions. It shows that most differences between the two versions were due to changes in typesetting and the mention of supplementary materials or additional files.

Neither study explores the percentage of preprints that are never published or are retracted.

Preprints and peer review explained

Covering biomedical research preprints amid the coronavirus: 6 things to know

Preprints are research papers that are posted by authors to a server before the formal peer review process and publication in an academic journal.

Many life science and biomedical studies, including those related to the pandemic, are posted to the health sciences server  medRxiv  (pronounced med-archive) and the biological sciences server  bioRxiv (pronounced bio-archive). arXiv is another open-access server for papers on physics, math, computer science and economics. Overall, there are more than 60 preprint servers.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints were mostly used and discussed by scientists. But since early 2020, the number of preprints posted on servers has exponentially grown and preprint studies have been discussed on social media, covered by traditional media and have influenced public opinion and policy.

Peer review is a process that research papers, including preprints, go through in order to be published in an academic journal. The journals’ editors take advice from experts, also called referees, who assess the study. The articles are typically published only after the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and the journal editors are satisfied, according to an explainer on medRxiv.

The peer review process usually takes months, and sometimes more than a year. During the pandemic, many researchers needed to communicate their findings quickly. So they turned to preprint servers, where they can upload their papers and reach a wide audience.

Many preprints are eventually peer reviewed and published. According to some estimates about two-thirds to three-quarters of biomedical preprints are eventually published in academic journals. But with the rapid growth of preprints, there are more discussions around the peer-review process and its role . Researchers are also exploring questions about the reliability of preprints because their conclusions might change after the peer-review process.

What’s peer review? 5 things you should know before covering research

There’s no simple answer to the ongoing discussion, but the bottom line for journalists stays the same: take a pause and scrutinize any study you plan on reporting.

“Before covering a preprint, or any unreviewed or preliminary research, ask yourself: ‘Do the benefits for my audience outweigh the potential risks?'” advised Alice Fleerackers , a researcher at Simon Fraser University’s Scholarly Communications Lab who has been studying the preprint landscape , in an email interview. She was not involved in the studies discussed in this piece.

And remember that “the peer review is not a silver bullet quality control mechanism,” Fleerackers added. “Journalists should be careful and critical when covering  any  scientific research, peer reviewed or not.”

What the two studies show

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic liam brierley ; et al. plos biology, february 2022..

The study’s aim : Researchers wanted to find out whether preprints withstand the scrutiny of the peer review process and whether their conclusions change by the time they’re published.

How they did it : The team identified 105 COVID-19 preprints that were posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers between January and April 2020, as well as 105 non-COVID-19 preprints posted between September 2019 and April 2020, and that were eventually published in a peer-reviewed journal. After excluding several studies for various reasons such as lacking an abstract in the published version, they narrowed down the total to 184 preprint-published study pairs. They then used a computer program and the Microsoft Word Track Changes feature to compare the text of the abstract in the preprint and corresponding published version.

Researchers didn’t analyze the entire text of the article and used the abstracts instead. Abstracts are considered the first port of call for most readers. They often contain the summary of the key findings and main conclusions of the study and are freely accessible, even for journals that have paywalls.

What they found : Overall, the study shows that preprints were most often published with only minor changes to the conclusions in their abstracts. This suggests that the publication process has a minimal but beneficial effect on preprints by increasing sample sizes or statistics or by making author language more conservative, the authors write. The study also shows:

• Overall, most abstracts are comparable between the preprinted and published article, but COVID-19 articles underwent greater textual changes in their abstracts compared with non-COVID-19 articles. Specifically, 17.2% of COVID-19 abstracts had major changes in their conclusions compared with 7.2% of non-COVID-19 abstracts.
• More than 85% of preprints didn’t have any changes in authorship when published. However, COVID-19 preprints were almost three times as likely to have additional authors when published, compared with non-COVID-19 preprints (17.2% versus 6.2%).
• On average there was no difference in the total number of figures and tables when comparing preprints with their published version. The authors also find that in more than two-thirds of published studies, the content of the figures didn’t change. But in 23%, there was significant content added or removed.
• The team also investigated the impact of public discourse on preprints — such as discussion on Twitter — and changes to the abstract or figures in the published version. Overall, they didn’t find a strong correlation between the number of comments or tweets and amount of change in publication.
• Also of note, they report COVID-19 preprints don’t always share their data publicly and many authors provide data only upon request. Also, many published articles had faulty hyperlinks to the supporting information. “The biggest surprise was how difficult it was to access supplemental data in published papers — many of the links on journal websites were broken or looped back to the main paper,” wrote Jonathon Alexis Coates , one of the study’s seven co-authors, in an email interview.

Findings apply to more recent preprints. Coates, a post-doctoral researcher at Queen Mary University of London, started a podcast in 2021 called Preprints in Motion , where he discusses preprints with the authors. “Through this, and my observations of using preprints, it definitely appears that our data holds up and that there would probably not be significant differences if we analyzed pairs from 2021,” Coates said in his email. “More, scientifically, we included a control data set of non-COVID preprints that were posted and published during the same time period (or as close as we could get). This data showed a similar pattern to the COVID preprints, suggesting that the results are applicable beyond pandemic-related work.”

The bigger picture : The pandemic has had some impact on the scientific community’s view of preprints, Coates wrote in his email. “Preprints are much more accepted and scientists within the biosciences have a greater awareness and understanding of preprints generally,” he wrote. “Many had positive experiences posting pandemic-related preprints and have, anecdotally stated they will preprint again in the future. I have also noticed that more scientists appear to be actively thinking about the publication process and how it needs to change which I think is a big positive.” He added that the study is not a direct comment on the peer review process.

What other experts say about the study : Fleerackers said it was “shocking” to see that 17.2% of COVID-19 preprints underwent major changes in their conclusions. “This is a scary finding, considering how much preprints have been used in pandemic reporting and policy decisions,” she wrote in her email. “This has major implications for journalists who rely on these preprints in their reporting, and for audiences who try to make health decisions based on this unreviewed evidence. It’s also important for researchers who cite and build on these results in their research.”

Advice to journalists : “For journalists covering preprints, I would consider focusing on big picture findings rather than specific statistics, contextualizing any results within a larger body of evidence, and emphasizing that these findings could change in future — as is the case with all science,” wrote Fleerackers. “[Do] your homework as a journalist: read the methods and limitations critically and seek opinions from independent researchers, particularly on those parts of the manuscript that you don’t have the expertise to vet yourself. This is true for all research, but the results of this study suggest it may be even more important when covering preprints, particularly those about COVID-19.”

Study limitations : Because researchers didn’t compare the entire content of the studies, it’s not clear whether changes in the abstract reflect changes throughout the manuscript. Researchers also add:

• They looked at a small sample of studies that were published in academic journals shortly after they were posted on preprint servers, so they study excludes preprints that may have been published more slowly.
• Because of its short time frame, the study doesn’t use unpublished preprints as a control. This comparison would provide a stronger and more direct findings on the role of journal peer review and the reliability of preprints, the authors note.
• In addition, the study doesn’t measure how much of the changes were introduced by the peer-review process since it is difficult to determine when the preprint was posted relative to submission to the journal. Some preprints are revised and posted on servers several times before they are published.
• Researchers also note that it is difficult to objectively compare two versions of a research paper. For example, abstracts that had many changes in the text, such as rearrangements of words, didn’t have a meaningful change in their conclusion.

Conflicts of Interest : The researchers report that one of the authors is the executive director of ASAPbio , a non-profit organization promoting the productive use of preprints in the life sciences. Another is a bioRxiv affiliate, part of a volunteer group of scientists that screen preprints deposited on the bioRxiv server.

Examining Linguistic Shifts Between Preprints and Publications David Nicholson ; et al. PLOS Biology, February 2022.

The study’s goal: The team wanted to compare the text of preprints in bioRxiv and their corresponding published studies to examine how peer review changes the documents. They used computer programs to analyze and compare the texts. Researchers also used the programs to identify similar papers and journals. It’s important to note that the study doesn’t investigate similarities in results and conclusions.

How they did it : They downloaded a snapshot of PubMed Central , which is an open access digital archive of full text peer-reviewed biomedical and life science research and is part of the U.S. National Library of Medicine on Jan. 31, 2020. They also downloaded a snapshot of the content of bioRxiv on Feb. 3, 2020. In addition, they downloaded a snapshot of New York Times Article Archives on July 7, 2020 as a representative of general English text and to identify bioRxiv preprints linked to a published article. They linked 17,952 preprints with a published version in PubMed.

What they found : Over 77% of bioRxiv preprints had a corresponding published version. “This suggests that most work from groups participating in the preprint ecosystem is now available in final form for literature mining and other applications,” Nicholson and co-authors write. They also find:

• A subset of preprints posted in the first four months of the pandemic were published faster than the broader set of bioRxiv preprints, showing that peer review was accelerated.
• The most common change between a preprint and published version was typesetting and the mention of supporting information or additional materials.
• Preprints that had more versions posted on the servers and more changes in text took longer to publish. Every additional preprint version was associated with an increase of 51 days before a preprint was published. This suggests that authors may be updating their preprints in response to peer reviews or other external feedback.
• The team also created the Preprint Similarity Search website that sifts through 1.7 million  PubMed Central open access documents  and lets users to find 10 papers and journals that are most similar to the textual content of a  bioRxiv  or  medRxiv  preprint.

What other experts say about the study : “I am surprised that more than three-quarters (77%) of the preprints they analyzed are now available in a peer reviewed journal,” wrote Fleerackers in an email. “This is higher than what was found in previous studies, and is likely an underestimate of the true number of preprints that are eventually published. For journalists, this is a really important takeaway as it answers another key question that could influence their decision to cover preprints: ‘How often do preprints actually get published in peer reviewed journals?'”

Fleerackers added that the Nicholson study adds more context to the study by the Brierley team because it looks at a much larger number of preprints and their corresponding published versions.

Advice to journalists : “Treat preprints with a grain of salt, but treat peer-reviewed publications that way too,” said Casey Greene , who’s one of Nicholson’s five co-authors, a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics and the founding director of the Center for Health AI in the University of Colorado School of Medicine. “Ultimately, both are simply steps along our path to better understanding the world around us.”

Conflicts of Interest : Researchers report that one author receives a salary from Elsevier, a Netherlands-based publishing company specializing in scientific, technical and medical content.

What other studies show

In “ Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions ,” published in the International Journal on Digital Libraries in February 2018, researchers compared the text of title, abstract and body of preprints posted on arXiv and bioRxiv servers with their published version. They ended up with 12,202 preprints posted between 2003 and 2015 on arXiv and 2,516 posted between 2013 and 2016 on bioRxiv that had a final published version. Their analysis shows that “the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions.”

News media outlets vary widely in how they cover preprint studies, new research finds

In “ Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation ,” published in BMJ Open in July 2021, researchers compare preprints and final journal publications for 67 COVID-19 studies and find that one-third had no discrepancies in results. About a quarter had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication but not in the preprint.

In 12% of the studies, at least one outcome was reported in the preprint only.

They also evaluated the studies for spin, which refers to specific reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so that results are viewed more favorably.

“The COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin,” the authors write. “All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.”

Meanwhile, in “ COVID-19 randomized controlled trials in medRxiv and PubMed ,” a small study published in the European Journal of Medicine in November 2020, researchers compare the full text of 13 preprint studies posted on medRxiv with 16 published studies in PubMed, all of which were about COVID-19 and were randomized controlled trials. The preprint studies were not related to the published studies.

Their analysis shows an increased rate of spin — positive terms used in the title or abstract section — in preprints compared with published studies. “Readers should pay attention to the overstatements in preprints of [randomized controlled trials],” the authors write.

Additional reading

Rise of the preprint: how rapid data sharing during COVID-19 has changed science forever , Nature Medicine, January 2022

About The Author

Naseem S. Miller