Be sure to read How to review a paper and How much to review

Praise the work if possible!

Do not be "reviewer 2" that nitpicks. Do your job as a reviewer and review the science, but if it is good, don't feel the need to call for revisions just because. It is okay to recommend acceptance or acceptance with minor revisions (typos, etc.).

If something seems off, investigate!

If you read something and get a hint of suspicion, consider digging in to citations the author makes for claims that seem dubious to you. Sometimes, authors make dubious claims and cite a paper, but the paper they cite does not support them or even contradicts them! I've reviewed manuscripts that came apart after checking a few citations, unravelling like pulling loose yarn from a knit sweater:.

Limit time spent reviewing based on value it brings to you!

Reviewing is great experience, but time spent reviewing is ultimately low-ROI as far as your career is concerned. Your limited time would often be better spent writing your own papers or applying to grants you think you can secure. Reviewing really is good experience because you learn "the other side", but once you have done a few reviews at a few different journals, the utility of doing more reviews drops off dramatically. You don't get any "credit" for reviewing and you don't list the number of reviews you do on your CV. Nobody hires someone because they reviewed a lot of manuscripts.

Index

Return to Start Here

Jump to How to review a paper