Peer Review

Type	Description
Single Blind	Peer reviewers not known to authors but peer reviewers see authors Peer review reports not published
Double Blind	Both authors and peer reviewers are not identified
Open (i.e. Transparent)	The peer review reports and identities are published with the paper

Peer review is not quick or easy. It takes hours over a period of time to do well.

Goal: Give constructive feedback to peer researchers in a professional tone that includes both the strengths and weakness of their work.

Benchmark to Shoot for: Review 3 papers for every paper you submit or review ~1 paper per month

Reasons to Peer Review:

Service to scientific community

Teach trainees by co-reviewing with

Build researcher profile and CV (ORCID, Web of Science) to record/get credit for peer review activity

Steps for Peer Review

Before Accepting Peer Review

Am I qualified?

Do I have any conflicts?

Do I have time?

Doing the Peer Review

Before Starting the Peer Review

Is their a submission form with questions? Is this a narrative or structured review

Step 1: Initial Read through Paper

Read through the whole manuscript to get an overall impression of the study. Maybe jot down a few notes but not much.
Questions to think about:
- What is the research question?
- Is the question answered?
- Does the data support the claims?
- Novelty? Appropriate for the journal/would readers be interested in the study?
- Study design appropriate?
- Any fundamental flaws?
- Strong methodological rigor?

Step 2: Put paper aside for a couple of days

Step 3: Detailed read through and content analysis (major comments)

Step 4: Readability analysis (minor comments)

Make notes in a separate document and note the line #
Logical flow/structure
This is not about spelling and grammar. Don’t worry about this unless it causes major issues with readability. The paper will be copy edited if accepted for publicatin.

Step 5: Write the summary statement of paper and thoughts on suitable for publication.

Does not need to be long
Helps the authors know you too the time to understand their study and the editors know what you think about it.
1st part of the report