Key assessment criteria for peer reviewers
Sometimes, although a scientific concept might be fantastic, the execution is flawed. Equally, sometimes, even if the processes and analysis are rigorous, the framing and articulation of the approach and findings are lacking. This is why the role of peer reviewers is so important. You are both evaluating the validity of the scientific study itself and assessing the academic rigour of the manuscript description of the study.
This KnE Clue will offer a few quick tips on some of the key criteria that need to be considered when establishing the academic rigour of a manuscript submission and what kind of support your review should provide to address these issues.
KNE CLUE: WHAT TO LOOK FOR
Are the aims of the study clearly described
Do the design and execution of the study seem robust and appropriate for the study topic, aims and objectives
Is an adequate rationale provided for the design choices
Are the methods described clearly and in sufficient detail to enable reproducibility
Are the discussions critical and comprehensive, avoiding repetition and redundancies
Is the literature recent, reflecting the most up to date developments in the subject field, and peer reviewed
Is the content fully in line with the scope
Of course, one could argue that the inevitable response is to only accept content that has valid, viable study designs, perfectly aligned with the journal’s scope. However, very few manuscripts are accepted without revisions; instead it is the role of the peer reviewer to help guide the author(s) to improve their manuscript via judicious recommendations, helping them to better meet the journal’s requirements.
KNE CLUE: ACTION POINTS
Where content is only slightly out of scope, highlight this and make suggestions for better alignment
Make suggestions to help the authors to refine the descriptions of study aims and design choices
Make suggestions where needed to ensure the methodologies are adequately described with enough detail to ensure reproducibility
Help to ensure that references are up to date and cutting-edge by proposing some texts the authors might want to consider engaging with (and give pointers on which areas you wish to see these discussions focus on – to make sure they don’t just dump names in the reference list without reading and engaging with the content)
The key thing is not to reject viable articles, but to really nurture the authors and help them to understand precisely what you need from them, and where they are going to have to make improvements.
To offer effective suggestions and feedback, it is vital that you are knowledgeable in the area of study the paper is focused on. You must also be able to give the review the time and dedication it requires. Therefore, when deciding whether to accept or decline a request for peer review, take a while to think about whether you will be able to offer a valuable and extensive review. To learn more about what to consider when deciding whether to be a peer reviewer, check out our KnE Clue, ‘Should you agree to peer review?’ below.