How to become a good reviewer

How was it for you? I'm tired, but I liked it... 😳

Listen... I made an effort! I really wanted this to come to the world fully formed yesterday... 

It didn't happen. Too much information and "zooms" make me groggy...

So, here we are. End of #PeerReviewWeek2023. My first full one. 
How was it for you? I'm tired, but I liked it... 
 
 
I promised a post a day, so I'm due one. This one. I want to tell you all about how I do this thing. Peer review is not an art form. It's work. We can break it down into a process.

How do you become a good peer reviewer?

Not to brag, but already doing it, I'm quite good 😎 (did you see this?)

Here are some top tips:

  • Read.
In your area, in areas adjacent, sometimes in completely unrelated ones. 
It's good to be aware of different styles and conventions, as they all have features we can learn from. 
Reading keeps you up to speed with the latest developments in your field, and it is a good habit to maintain if you want to continuously develop your style.
  • Take notes.  
As good as you may be, you don't know it all. Nobody does.
This is especially true if going through texts describing new research. There is always something that you can learn: a reference paper you were not aware of, the application of a known technique that intrigued you, a different way to present the data.
  • Praise the good.
There is always something. Find it. 
The authors spent a long time thinking about the paper in front of you, structuring the study, conducting literature review, gathering data, analysing it, writing it up. 
Acknowledge the effort.
  • Point out the errors.
Reading a peer review report is a learning opportunity for the authors. 
Grab your teacher's hat. Be pedagogical. This is maybe the first time these ideas have been made public. 
Be constructive: what could be done differently to improve the study or the writing? If there is a fundamental flaw in reasoning, state this. But never get into personal judgements.
  • Be aware of your own biases.
You are human. The authors are human. Even AI has biases...
Just keep yourself in check. Be fair. Be transparent if any conflict of interest arises. A reviewer is in a priviledged position. Keep the integrity of the process.
  • Be clear.
Your goal is to communicate your thoughts on someone else's work and writing. Your suggestions could lead to improvements in the work and help to advance knowledge. Structure helps in doing this. Define key priorities and differentiate between "must have" and "would be nice to include".
 

If you are starting out in your academic career and would like some feedback on your writing, get in touch. 

If you have been asked to review a paper by your supervisor and don't know where to start, email me. 

If you're reading a paper and have no idea whether it's good or bad, whether to trust the findings it describes or not, I'm here to help.

This is what I do. It's the job I excel at. 

And I can teach you the ropes.

Discover Storytelling for Science!




Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

London Book Fair 2024: challenges for publishers

Image
I went to London with a purpose. It’s always good to meet collaborators and friends, but I had other goals with my visit. You see, it’s never good when the decisions that impact us are arrived at without our input. I wanted to bring awareness of my new peer review standards project to those in the publishing industry that can benefit from them. I'm comfortable researching and reviewing, even editing and managing the peer review process, but hearing editors and publishers speak of the big picture issue was an eye-opener. Change is ever present The publishing industry fancies itself as having evolved to explore the heritage and lived experience of minorities, by more frequently placing a spotlight on hidden and undervalued communities. Jonathan Karp, who spoke on the current model of employee ownership that underpins his role as CEO at Simon & Schuster , perfectly exemplified this—with profits now being reinvested in the company, there’s a new collaborative
Read more

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

London Book Fair 2024: OA and AI

Image
In a survey on the trends of academic publishing conducted in 2023, reflecting on the need to reformulate the current business model was front of mind. The need to optimize operational efficiencies may stem from the increased adoption of open access (OA) policies. For those not in the know, OA is a practice that enables research outputs to be distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers, including the ability for copy or reuse, by applying an open license for copyright. The mandates  advocated by the Holdren Memo in the US, the Nelson Memo in the UK, and Plan S for the EU consolidated the view that unrestricted access to research publications is part of an integral right for transparency—we want to view the outcomes of taxpayer-funded research. However, many publishers follow a gold OA model and charge an article processing charge (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. This means that readers don't pay, because t
Read more