Comments to the Editor

The comments to the editor go to the editor, but not the author.
This is where I plainly state my decision on the manuscript. I also lay bare any glaring errors in brief form for the editor, for the sake of brevity. I allow myself to be a bit more loose with my language. The rest of the review, going to the author, is extremely professional and respectful, but the comments to the editor may include a more frank disclosure of suspicions of bad science, if warranted.

Summary of Manuscript

The summary of manuscript is where I summarize the main points of the manuscript in one paragraph.
This demonstrates that I read and understood the manuscript as a method of building good faith with the authors that will read my review comments. It would also highlight any glaring misunderstandings, should they happen. Having been an author on the receiving end of reviews that made me think, "Did this reviewer even read the manuscript?", I like having this section.

Main issues

The main issues are for big problems, if I find any.
Samples that don't make sense, statistical mistakes, extrapolations in the discussion that are not warranted, figure that is unclear, etc. These are things the authors need to address.

Other issues

The other issues are lesser problems and line-edits.
I go section by section and note page numbers and line-numbers where possible. Could be typos, funky wording, hard to follow arguments, citation suggestions, etc. These are things the authors need to fix, but they're minor and uncontroversial.

Data Availability

The data availability section is where I add the Center for Open Science statement:

https://osf.io/hadz3/

The Center for Open Science endorses the following statement for peer reviewers to request of authors the disclosure of data collection and analysis necessary to conduct their peer-review duties.

"I request that the authors add a statement to the paper confirming whether, for all experiments, they have reported all measures, conditions, data exclusions, and how they determined their sample sizes. The authors should, of course, add any additional text to ensure the statement is accurate. This is the standard reviewer disclosure request endorsed by the Center for Open Science [see http://osf.io/hadz3]. I include it in every review."

A standard statement enables the community of reviewers to improve community norms toward disclosure across all journals and articles, and facilitates remaining anonymous when submitting such requests.

In the data availability section, I also request that the authors include some version of the 21-word solution:

"We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study."
Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21-word solution. Dialogue. The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality And Social Psychology, 26(2), 4–7.

The data availability section is about Open Science and making sure authors declare things openly, i.e. are not hiding analyses they did but are not publishing.

Signature

Personally, I also sign my reviews.

Index

Return to Reviewing papers

Jump to How much to review