Reviewing is one of the most important things researchers do for one another, and one of the least taught. If the basics feel murky, you are not alone. Here is a practical playbook — fitting for Peer Review Week — to help you review well.
Before you accept
Say yes only if three things are true: the topic is within your competence, you have no conflict of interest (and if a minor one exists, declare it to the editor), and you can meet the deadline. Declining promptly is far more helpful than accepting and disappearing.
How to structure a review
- Open with a short, neutral summary of what the paper claims and contributes. It shows the authors you understood them and helps the editor.
- Separate major from minor issues. Major issues affect the validity of the conclusions; minor ones are clarity, typos, and presentation. Do not bury a fatal flaw among comma fixes.
- Be specific and evidential. "The sample size seems low" helps less than "with n=12 and this effect size, the study is likely underpowered; consider a power analysis."
- Use the confidential comments to the editor for your honest recommendation and any concerns you would not put to the authors directly.
The mindset that makes a great reviewer
Review the paper the authors wrote, not the paper you would have written. Your job is to assess whether the work is sound and clearly reported, not to redirect it to your preferences. Be rigorous and kind at once: firm on standards, generous in tone. Remember the human on the other end — very often an early-career researcher.
The non-negotiables
Keep the manuscript confidential: do not share it, and do not paste it into public AI tools, which can breach that confidentiality. Be timely. And recommend a decision honestly, even when it is hard. Done well, your review is a gift to the authors and a service to every future reader. That craft is something we actively support through the Xpertia Academic Academy.
