Ed reviewer tasks

• Prevent the publication of incorrect work (poorly conceived, designed, or executed)

  • Methodology: Check that the research reported has been carried out well and there are no flaws in the design or methodology

  • Framework (Introduction, Discussion): Ensure that the work is reported correctly and unambiguously, with acknowledgement to the existing body of work

  • Results: Ensure that the results presented have been interpreted correctly and plausible alternative interpretations considered

• Assess scientific value of manuscripts

  • Ensure that the results are not too preliminary or too speculative, but at the same time you do not block innovative new research and theories

  • Select work that will be of the greatest interest to the readership

  • Provide editors with evidence to make judgments as to whether articles meet the selection criteria for their particular publications

• Generally improve the quality and readability of a publication

  • Improve clarity, transparency, accuracy, and utility

based on Bradley & Chung  (2012) A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts

Journal editors invite peer reviewers because they require the peer reviewer’s

• content expertise to assess if the study 

  • is scientifically sound: the methods and data analysis are appropriate

  • is factually correct: the fact cited in the study are correctly 

• discipline expertise to assess if the study

  • states aims, hypotheses, and data that are consistent with current knowledge (if not, is this a new discovery or an error)

  • advances the field

  • is relevant: others (without or outside the study’s discipline) will be interested in the findings of this study

  • follows disciplinary norms and meets disciplinary standards (conceptual framework, methods)

• academic expert to assess if the study 

  • uses scientific method correctly

  • asks valid scientific questions and formulates valid scientific hypotheses

  • formulates logical arguments

based on Mole (2007). Rebuffs and rebuttals II: take me back!  Journal of Cell Science 120, 1311-1313

How to write and submit your review

• draft your review using the recommended format

  • use the recommended template for peer reviews (below)

  • make sure your review is consistent with ICB's guiding values for peer reviews (empowering, mindful, actionable)

  • make sure to leave confidential comments for the editor about which aspects of the manuscript you are (not) confident assessing and any concerns you want to share in confidence (such as animal welfare and other ethics issues)

• check your review for bias

  • we all tend to favor our in groups

• maintain your anonymity

  • copy the text of your review into the relevant fields on the ScholarOne website to ensure that no identifying information is passed along

  • avoid submitting your review as an attached file 

General structure of a peer review

1. summary of the manuscript's topic, main findings, and relevance

2. main concerns

• focus on 2 to 5 major concerns

• if you have more than 5 major concerns, check if any are more a disagreement with the authors’ choice than an issue of scientific validity

3. minor concerns

• remember that you are a peer reviewer, not a co-author; it is not your job to copy edit the manuscript: merely point out examples of common mechanical errors rather than correcting each and every one

• focus on minor concerns that won’t be made obsolete by a revision that addresses your major concerns

General tips

• be specific and constructive

• don’t give your opinion, provide evidence to proof your point

• respect the author’s academic freedom; you are not a co-author

• don’t allow the best to be the enemy of the good

• align the severity of your comments with your recommendation

Tips for phrasing comments to authors

Don’t be prescriptive; reviewers are great at spotting problems, but authors are often better at finding holistic solutions to those problems

• what you perceive as a major error might be a simple misunderstanding, best fixed by revising the text

• therefore: communicate to the authors that your constructive comments are contingent on you correctly understanding the author’s intent and the manuscript’s meaning

• if you want a perspective shift, look at the tips and challenges for editors' dealing with peer reviews

Ethical issues concerning the peer reviewer

• check your own bias

  • confirmation bias (favoring established knowledge and dominant knowledge centers) 

  • positionality-related bias (gender, nationality or other characteristics of the author and the manuscript)

• make arguments about the science and support those arguments with evidence

• do not request that the author cite your own papers; unless there is a strong scholarly rationale

Ethical issues concerning the author

• is there a funding statement?

• is there a conflict of interest statement?

• is there a statement concerning ethical conduct of experiments (animal or human-subject permits)

For the peer reviewer

• be mindful of cultural differences in conventions for how to construct narratives and arguments

• be mindful of implicit bias against authors with non-English names (‘please have your paper read by a native speaker’)

• be mindful of regional differences in English idioms, spelling, and grammar

For the author

• is the reference list representative of the discipline’s diversity (gender, geography, etc.)?

• does author use inclusive language (such as gender-inclusive)?

• does the study follow equity-minded practices (such as representation of local experts on the author team)?