<Don’t be a prig in peer review> and my thoughts

Read this article from Nature today. I do have some thoughts to share as I have reviewed 300+ times for international journals and published 60+ refereed journals (approximately received 120+ reviews). These points should be helpful for authors seeking publications. One might also feel overloaded with reviewer requests.

You should keep the timeframe requested by a Journal when you accept a request. The following points could be considered when you provide a referee report.

• Proper training for peer-review

I received such training when I did my Ph.D. at UNSW Australia with Professor Aibing Yu. The document provided by the Americal Physical Society is very helpful. The following are the Guidelines provided by Physical Review E (https://journals.aps.org/pre/referees/guidelines-for-referees).

Guidelines for Referees

Referees play a crucial role in evaluating manuscripts submitted to the Physical Review journals. Physical Review editors work closely with referees to apply the acceptance criteria stringently and to act promptly in accepting or rejecting manuscripts. Your active collaboration as a referee is central to the success of the journals.

Invitation to Review

The email invitation to review includes links to accept or decline. Before you accept, please ensure that the manuscript content is close enough to your area of expertise to allow you to provide useful input and a prompt review. If that is not the case, please decline; your suggestions for alternate reviewers are welcomed.

Confidentiality

All materials associated with the review process are confidential, including the manuscript, Supplemental Material, author-provided material, referee reports, and other correspondence. These materials must remain confidential when you consult with colleagues or invite them to write a joint report. We ask that you include the names and contact information of any colleagues who help in writing the report. When you are reviewing a manuscript, please do not initiate discussions with the author(s); instead, please contact the editors with your inquiry.

It is vitally important for reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. Please let them know if you have a direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with an author that could preclude your objective evaluation of the manuscript. It is unethical for you to use the content of a manuscript sent to you for review for your own scientific purposes. The Physical Review journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics and follow its guidelines.

Reviewing the Manuscript and Writing the Report

The following guidelines are an aid to help when reviewing the manuscript. Read the referral letter carefully; there may be editor comments and questions, and/or reference material and previous correspondence sent with the referral. When writing your report, use clear, simple wording and avoid overly negative or polemical comments.

We suggest dividing your review into three parts: (I) Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors; (II) Recommendation; (III) Comments to the editors only.

Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors:

• Briefly summarize the manuscript. The summary could include a statement on the key results and how they add to the field.
• Assess the originality and significance of the results.
• Assess the technical quality and scientific rigor of the manuscript.
• Is the work well executed and technically correct?
• Are the models or approximations used sufficiently justified?
• Are the main conclusions or claims well supported?
• Is the section for which this manuscript is being considered (Regular Article, Rapid Communication, or Comment) the right venue for this work? Be aware that some sections have length limits.
• If submitted as a Rapid Communication, does the work’s quality and importance justify the special handling associated with the section?
• Assess the manuscript’s presentation.
• Are the title and abstract informative, concise, and clear?
• Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written?
• Is the description of the technical content sufficiently comprehensive?
• Are the references to the literature appropriate and adequate?
• Does the content of the manuscript justify its length? Please be specific as to how and where the manuscript could be expanded or shortened.
• Are the figures and tables clear, useful, and suitably summarized in the captions? Is there duplication from previous publications?
• Assess the content and quality of the Supplemental Material. Is the information included supplemental or essential for understanding the manuscript? Should any of it be included in the main text?

Recommendation:
Your report should include a recommendation to accept, revise and reconsider, or reject the manuscript. Please provide reasons for your recommendation.

Comments intended for the editors only:
When submitting your report, you will be presented with a table of checkboxes where you can summarize your overall view of the manuscript for the editors. Here you can indicate your recommendation on accepting or rejecting the manuscript, and, if appropriate, suggest that the paper be transferred to another Physical Review journal or submitted elsewhere. This section is where you may include confidential remarks for the editor. These comments may include your thoughts on why the paper is right or wrong for the particular journal, reasons behind your recommendation, or other information you feel would be useful.

• Critical, but kind and courteous

One published paper should enrich the knowledge pool. Critical is important for scientific publication. You certainly do not want to waste your time searching for useful points from many trash papers. Thus, a reviewer is asked to evaluate the originality of a paper and the significance of the results. One often compares the contributions from different papers and judges the originality and the significance. Thus a comprehensive and unbiased literature review is necessary and helpful.

A referee, when question the originality, should provide evidence supported comments, e.g., with published papers with similar claims.

The presentation often comes after the originality and significance. This depends on the journal policy. Some journals will reject such low-quality papers straight away. A responsible referee will give opportunities for authors to revise once the paper passed the screening of the journal's editorial office. However, personally, I do not have positive attitude to a poorly-presented paper. The authors should try to provide a better presentation through a few rounds of revision. 

• Constructive, not subjective

A reviewer should provide tangible comments objectively so that the authors know how to response. Regarding this aspect, the authors are suggested to take a second thought of the critical comments provided, do not just feel annoyed. Ofter, a reviewer's comment is based on your manuscript, and there is a high possibility that some points were not clear.

A reviewer should avoid untangible and subjective comments, particularly on personality.

Summary 

Some key rules should be followed for conducting peer review. However, I know it is hard to be 100% objective. That is why scientific journals often provide opportunities for the authors to provide a Reply for some rounds.

Try to provide kindly critical, evidence-based, and science promoting comments!

Reference

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02512-0?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_campaign=NGMT_USG_JC01_GL_Nature