How to become a great Reviewer of a peer-reviewed Journal?

Being senior graduate students, early-career researchers, junior scientists, independent leaders, we invest maximum efforts in conducting our own science and publish. On the contrary, we are not trained at the same intent to be a fantastic reviewer. In this line with some compilation of own first-hand experiences, here I pen down some of my thoughts. You are welcome to add/remove and provide useful comments or share among others.

How to become a great Reviewer of a peer-reviewed Journal?

1.                  First, the best reviewers provide their review in a timely manner without too many delays.

--- Their reviews are thorough and balanced and they respect the work and help the work to speak for itself with their comments.

2.                  Another important aspect is to learn “when” and “how” to say “NO”.

--- In cases where you are unsure about the content or have a potential conflict of interest or even the time clashes with other imminent commitments, it is best to say “No” politely to the Editor(s).

--- Normally editors never expect that all the review invitations will be accepted by the reviewers (in general, the acceptance rate is approx. < 10% among senior, leading scientists).

--- To improve the community to grow and help the work to stand out, it is also recommended to cite some capable individuals who will be able to help with the reviews in case you don’t have time. In most cases, the young people with the initial years of their scientific career may come handy here.

--- It is best to promptly decide the calendar and reserve some optimal time for review.

--- My experience portrays to start a day by reviewing the requested paper, which gives much fresh essence to reflect thoughts in a coherent manner.

3.                  The best way to provide the reviews is to be in the shoes of the authors/audiences. Then honestly and clearly reflect the pros and cons of the work as you see them.

--- Unclear, vague, seemly difficult, hyperbole words will not be going to help anyone.

--- As I said, also consider that all the authors may not be in a position not to perform some additional specific experiments as per your demand. Not all the cases the authors will have the expensive equipment, brilliant collaborators, and hence, best to indicate feasible additional experiments.

--- Also please be mindful when the authors describe the constraints in another way than you would have thought of. It is unlikely to expect that the flow will be according to your own thought. Here it is best to be scientifically flexible, yet polite.

4.                  There are cases and increasingly seen that the Journals are also including the reviewers' names in the final manuscript.

--- Here your personal reputation is in line with the published work. It is also unethical and seen in practice to request/demand to include piles of citations that the reviewer closely/distantly associated with. For the best scientific practice please refrain from doing this.

5.                  The reviewers are not paid for their contribution and that is perfectly fine.

---- Please do not reflect this as a burden but a privileged activity. It may result in a collaboration between authors, editors, other reviewers, and many more possibilities that we can think of. Also please be happy to be a reviewer as this helps to resonate with others and motivate young scientists to come forward and bring science to move forward.

--- In case of confusion, where you are unable to follow the Editors note and have suggestions please do not hesitate to email/call the editorial office.

And finally, “Review for others as you would have others review for you”-- McPeek et al., 2009

For more details, you may check these following links:

·        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06991-0

·        https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/09/how-review-paper 

Thank you for reading this far. I really appreciate it.

#journals #science #nature #peer-review #reviewer #scientists #phd