How to be a reviewer
Choosing the right peer reviewer is a critical decision that can shape the quality and integrity of the journal and its articles. As such, journal editors are rigorous in the search for reviewers that match their unique needs.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR?
While each editor may have their own preferences, most have the same core priorities when looking for reviewers. Here are four essential qualities editors prioritise:
Expert: The reviewer must be an authority in their field, preferably having published research that aligns with the topic under review.
Unbiased: The reviewer must approach the paper objectively, without personal or professional conflicts of interest affecting the evaluation.
Available: The ideal reviewers would be those who can commit to delivering detailed feedback within the given deadline.
Constructive: Rather than offering harsh criticism, the reviewer should provide suggestions that help authors improve their work.
KNE CLUE: HOW TO WRITE A PEER REVIEW REPORT
When requesting a peer review, most editors expect your evaluation to be built around four key questions. Structuring your review around these questions increases the likelihood that editors will find your feedback more valuable and persuasive.
When writing the report, it’s essential to keep your feedback constructive and unbiased. Avoid making any offensive or personal comments, as the goal is to help the author refine their research. Be clear and to the point in your review, focusing on the key points that need addressing. Lastly, deliver your report on time, with your suggestion to accept, reject or accept after changes, as timely feedback is important for the journal’s publication schedule.
To ensure that your report is as valuable and useful to the journal as possible, watch out for problems that make an article ineffective
Plagiarism or Duplication: The article is similar or identical to something you’ve seen in another journal.
Language Concerns: The language is poor and detracts from the impact of the argument.
Missing Information: Check the journal’s guidelines to ensure that the author has adhered to them, and highlight any sections required by the journal that are missing.
Outdated References: There is a lack of recent and relevant references for the topic of study.
Lack of Evidence: Data, analysis, or scholarly studies needed to support the author’s arguments are missing.