Hi Yu-Da,

I would argue that 'outstanding' reviewers are not born that way - and it's a skill that takes time and practice. I review for around 40 international journals - including sitting on several journal Boards as Associate Editor etc.

For the last few years I have been a member of the company Publons - which promotes open review. For the last year, I have been an invited member of their Publons Academy - as this link https://publons.com/community/academy/

This involves me 'mentoring' new reviewers and 'reviewing their practice reviews' before they send back to a journal. It is a good way for new reviewers to learn.

My other piece of main advice is, look to the feedback that you get when you send manuscripts in for journal review. Ask yourself - what is useful feedback for you - and what is not? For instance, for me, the best feedback is honest, balanced, constructive and comprehensive across the whole manuscript. The opposite doesn't work for me.

Hi Yu-Da,

I would argue that 'outstanding' reviewers are not born that way - and it's a skill that takes time and practice. I review for around 40 international journals - including sitting on several journal Boards as Associate Editor etc.

For the last few years I have been a member of the company Publons - which promotes open review. For the last year, I have been an invited member of their Publons Academy - as this link https://publons.com/community/academy/

This involves me 'mentoring' new reviewers and 'reviewing their practice reviews' before they send back to a journal. It is a good way for new reviewers to learn.

My other piece of main advice is, look to the feedback that you get when you send manuscripts in for journal review. Ask yourself - what is useful feedback for you - and what is not? For instance, for me, the best feedback is honest, balanced, constructive and comprehensive across the whole manuscript. The opposite doesn't work for me.

I agree with Dean that 'ideally' the review should be honest, balanced, constructive and comprehensive across the whole manuscript, HOWEVER, overall I reflect that the standard has dropped and this may be because of the increase in the number of journals - especially fee-paying, open access. I also feel the reviewers temper their comments if open rather than a closed review. Personally, I advocate for open reviews, not closed/blind, to help reduce academic malpractice.

I offer you my published paper on that exact issue. It includes two itemed lists:

The first list (“Subben’s checklist”) describes necessary ingredients of a complete article.

The second list provides criteria for assessing the quality/scientific value of an article.

If you use them and find that they are worth-while, then by all means drop me a line to let me know.

Dear Dean Whitehead

Thank you very much for your advice.

The honest, balanced, and constructive are good ways for me to learn.

I will also rethink how to get deeper feedback from my past reviews.

Yu-Da

A good reviewer must have time to read papers thoroughly, must know the state of the art in the particular field and must e constructive, always eager to improve a paper rather than to become dominant in the sense of becoming arrogant. The latter can become very destructive particular to junior scientists.

Dear Eberhard Weber , thank you for sharing your valuable insights.

interesting comments here, so let's make a two-flies-with-one-catch comment:

1) the reality is, that the quality of scientists who have a good overview over their own field declines and more and more marketing driven populistic fake news kind of papers appear - and that people cite other people seems often to be a ridiculous demand if you read papers (just saw another one on bioRxiv, my own field ridiculous with what impetus these people write down their results neglecting e.g. our results, which would really help them, but so their manuscript stays at leas mediocre...)...

2) now in turn what can you do about 1) and how to be constructive? I think the first ist to really say perhaps even blunt and very direct what you think - of course based on a good argument - and then by the reaction one can usually see, whether you can really be constructive. e.g. I made recently a comment publicly, with the effect, that the authors asked me to withdraw the public comment, because it would make a bad impression if one points them publicly to having missed 10 important papers which they did not even dare to cite, but their manuscript is public... so what attitude is this?

so my recommendation beyond what Dean Whitehead above has mentioned is: be hard, be to the point, have a real good argument, and also be willing to kill a paper either because of the scientific part or also just because some people try to manipulate in full conscience the rest of the community = so as with any "tyranny" their biggest fear is information, is the bare truth via spreading this information. so this might not be nice, but additionally to what Dean Whitehead has said, is I think also important - balanced of course, and with a good argument = like with children: if you allow everything they do not respect you, if you instead keep a line in a fair manner they will love you...

It is a skill developed over time as mentioned earlier. You must be current in the field being reviewed and must be fair and just

Dear Tobias Aurelius Knoch and Jumoke Soyemi,

Thank you for participating in this discussion and for sharing your valuable insights.

Well, I try to look for originality (That is common) , Grammar and sentence construct(I thought it was not needed but I know it does matter)and presentation some just write loads of equations !!!!I make concessions on some aspects such as flow of the paper as long as they have covered all the necessary aspects ...

Reviewer must be familiar with specific field to enhance the paper and have a lot and of publications about his or her field.

Dear Fares F. Fares , Aparna Sathya Murthy , Nirmala S.V.S.G

Thank you all for making this discussion so interesting and informative.

The originality is needed in a manuscript. The reviewer also needs familiar with that field for enhancing the paper.

Best regards,

Yu-Da Lin

•Be professional. It's called peer review for a reason.

•Be pleasant. Don't be cruel.

•Read, read, read.

•Be helpful.

•Be scientific.

•Be timely and swift.

•Be realistic.

•Be empathetic.

Pleasantly and sophisticately delivery of idea with indegionity and creativity

Dear Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak , Gurjit Singh ,

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

Be helpful and be realistic are the good answers.

Best regards,

Yu-Da

To be knowledgeable about research methods, critical thinking, and the ability to give fair and constructive opinions, and be free of any conflict of interest, to be objective and unbiased.

Professor Weber is perfectly right!

Dear Joshua O. Ighalo , Reuben Tamakloe , Isam Issa Omran ,

Thank you for sharing your insights and thoughts.

My ultimate objective for reviewing manuscripts is to improve their state and quality. I always comprehensively show authors what they must do to heighten the fulcrum of their manuscripts. I try hard not to be harsh to authors who are amateur researchers and lack the ethics in research writing though I sometimes recommend the decline for consideration of some manuscripts because of poor architecture (no marginal contribution to the field of study; inappropriate methods; poor presentation of results and lack of scholarly discussions etc.).

However, I find joy in doing this work because it constantly keeps me active in the field and makes me a more experienced researcher who can impart research tutorials through publications, lectures and mentorship. I have been rewarded severally for this honorable and selfless work!

The work of a reviewer is to improve the quality of the paper through his experience. That means that he must be knowledgeable in that field. He must also be read to pay attention to details and most importantly communicate in away that would not discourage the young researchers

I define the reviewer as a “professional reader", those, to see rational base where others may be not see. But here many stand on the position of scientific supervisor, this is wrong. Recommendations should relate to a better and more accurate statement of what is, and not what should be in the opinion of the reviewer. I suppose, his main motive should be to bring the article to a level so that everyone can easily see what is new and interesting that it contains. Therefore, in addition to knowledge of the subject, general erudition, the presence of which is mandatory, he must be friendly and contact. Of course, he has to sift out unscientific and weak works in a fairly unambiguous and rigid way. But the main function after all, indirect assistance to the author in the improvement of logic of his text.

Dear Vadim S. Gorshkov , Emmanuel Aniwetalu , Dickson Adom ,

Thank you for your thought-provoking addition to this discussion.