Reviewing #2a--More on writing a good review


In Reviewing #2, I provided a general overview of what makes a good review.  Here I add some details.

It is not necessary to recap the paper.  Many reviewers craft a careful summary of the paper.  The authors and editors know what the paper says, so don't waste time doing this.  On the other hand, a recap can be revealing if you aren't sure what the paper is really about.  In that case, saying something like, "It was difficult to understand the precise point(s) the authors were trying to make.  The paper appears to emphasize (or be about, or report on, or whatever phrase you want to use)....."  If your recap is not what the authors intended, that's a pretty good message for the authors to get.

Your review does not have to be long.  I have gotten reviews that are extremely lengthy and detailed, and I love the reviewers who write them, but I also feel great sympathy for the time they spent doing the reviews.  I even had a reviewer who rewrote the entire Discussion section for the authors!  Really, you just need to address the main strengths and weaknesses.  

Provide both a summary review of the paper and line-by-line comments, including the line numbers.  I mentioned in Reviewing #2 that I keep a Word file open as I go along and make comments as I read.    I note the line numbers.  This not only means half the review is written by the time I get done, but the individual comments often provide the basis for the summary review.

Most journals have a checklist of things to look out for, such as, does the title match the paper, does the abstract match the paper, are the references sufficient, and so on.  If the answers are "yes", you needn't elaborate.  If the answers are "no", please do elaborate.

On the other hand...the journal I edit for has three criteria--innovativeness, provocativeness, and of  broad interest.  Although the journal provides a checklist, it is really helpful when the reviewers elaborate on these questions, regardless of whether the answers are "yes" or "no".

This leads into the conclusion of this topic:  Most reviewers are conscious of the fact that they are writing for the author(s).  But many seem to forget that their first audience is the editor.  This is another reason being straightforward about the criticism (see Reviewing #2) is so important.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reviewing #7--To sign or not to sign?

Whether you sign your reviews is a personal decision, and I would never question someone who decides on anonymity.  But, here's my take on it.  I decided from my first review request, which must have been some time in the early or mid-1980s, to sign all my reviews.  I did this despite the fact that most people opted for anonymity and many women often concealed their sex by using only initials (I also decided to publish using my full name). I made this decision for one reason.  I felt (and still feel) that if I were critical of someone's work, I should have the courage of my convictions.  Science is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas, and hiding behind anonymity in reviews is not, in my mind, conducive to that kind of transparency.  I would sign my reviews of NSF proposals, if NSF would let me (they will not allow you to sign, and will strip out any attempt to do so). I cannot know what I don't know, so I have no idea if this decision has had negative conseq
Read more

Reviewing #2--What makes a good review?

The most important task for a reviewer is to do a good review.  By "good", I mean constructive and as comprehensive as you have time for but comprehensive enough (see "constructive"). Don't pull your punches, but don't be sarcastic or dismissive, either.  One would think this would go without saying, but it's not.  So what do I mean when I say "don't pull your punches"? Human nature is such that we read the good and ignore the bad.  If you wrap all the negative comments in cotton, the author(s) will misread them or won't take them seriously.  So it's best to just be straightforward and candid.  Explain what the problem is and why it's a problem (and there may be multiple problems).  And, if you are so inclined, suggest a solution.  If you cite references, be sure to provide them. Basically, follow the Golden Rule.  Ask yourself if your review will either help the author(s) improve the manuscript, or if the manuscript cann
Read more

Reviewing #3--Why should I review papers?

Let's face it, reviewing even short papers is time consuming, and time is at a premium.  There is little reward. Reviewing can have a direct impact on your career in only two instances I can think of. One is, if you're going up for tenure and have reviewed papers for major journals and still managed to excel in other respects, that's a feather in your cap.  Being invited to review papers for major journals early in your career looks good on the CV (or resume).  After all, it may mean someone outside your university knows who you are and respects you (or someone inside your university recommended you--either way, it's good).  The other instance is after tenure.  If your CV does not show that you have done any reviewing, it can be a bit negative because of the expectation that you should be using your expertise to give back to the community. But those impacts are low.  No one is denied tenure or further promotion and pay raises because they didn't do any reviewing
Read more