Scholarly publishing relies heavily on reviewers. In addition to validating academic work, peer review improves the quality of published research and facilitates networking among researchers.

Identifying which papers can be published is guided by peer reviewers. Identification of flaws in methodology and unfounded conclusions is crucial. A reviewer should also distinguish potential problems.

The community benefits from accepting a review. Reviewers can learn from others in their areas of interest.

Types of Peer Review

In single anonymized reviews, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This type of peer review is the traditional method of reviewing. The benefit of reviewer anonymity is impartiality, but it can also veer into unnecessarily harsh commentary on the authors’ work.

In a double anonymized review, both the reviewer and the author are anonymous. Author anonymity limits reviewer bias based on gender, country of origin, academic status, or publication history. It also allows for articles written by prestigious or renowned authors to be considered on the content of their article rather than their reputation.

However, total author anonymity is not guaranteed because authors could be identified by subject (especially when the field of study is narrow), writing style, or self-citation.

With a triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous, and the author’s identity is unknown to reviewers and editors. The complexities involved in anonymizing articles to this level are considerable.

Open review is an umbrella term for many models aiming at greater transparency during the peer review process. For example, the reviewer and author are known to each other during the process. Other types of open review may make peer-review reports or publications transparent for open discussion with the community.

Some believe open reviews encourage honest reviewing. However, others see the process as problematic; politeness or fear of retribution may cause reviewers to withhold or tone down criticism.

How to Peer Review

Try to have an uninterrupted block of time to read the manuscript entirely. Doing so will give an overview of the flow of the paper. Realize that it will take several hours to complete a review. With experience, the time required will likely decrease. Develop a system. Writing a meaningful review away from reference materials and computers is complex.

The primary job of a reviewer is to review content. Is the content accurate and up to date? Conduct a literature search to ensure that all relevant information is included in the manuscript.

The manuscript should include a discussion of critical studies in the field. Content also should be balanced between introductory and more advanced material. Do not assume that every reader is as familiar with the topic; basic explanatory information should be included.

The second reading of the manuscript should take place after the literature search. Notes can be made on aspects of the manuscript discussed in the review, such as missing literature, overemphasis on some sections, inaccurate or out-of-date content, lack of focus, particular strengths, clarity of tables and figures, and suggestions for change.

Most of the content should be referenced, preferably with peer-reviewed references. Check as many references as possible. Ensure that the references are used accurately and not taken out of context. If errors were found in citations, include that information in the review. Errors in citations might imply a carelessness in manuscript preparation that may carry forward into the body of the paper.

Do not spend time reviewing grammar or style, and do not rewrite the manuscript. The reviewer’s job is to assess the content, not the style. In the review, describe whether the manuscript reads clearly and flows well. Have familiarity with the journal’s author guidelines. In the review, note whether the manuscript seems right for the journal and whether the author followed guidelines.

If there are conflicts of interest, inform the editor and return the manuscript as soon as possible. Conflicts may include recognizing the author, having a financial interest in the subjects discussed, or having bias about the topic. Confidentiality is part of the reviewer’s role, and the manuscript should not be shared or discussed with anyone other than the editor.

Comments to the author should be professional and positive. Employ constructive criticism and avoid negativity. Finally, make an overall assessment and recommendation to reject or accept, with or without major or minor revisions. Reviewers play an invaluable role in upholding the professional standards of their field.