1. Acceptance

Accepting the invitation to review: Ask yourself whether you are the right person for the job:

a) Do you have the time to spend several hours reading over and developing a position on this paper?

b) Do you have enough familiarity with the field of study and the methods being used to be able to critically evaluate them?

2. Critical reading:

• Is the paper well-organized, with the various sections properly separated
• Do the authors provide a reasonably thorough summary of the literature?
• Has the research question, hypothesis, and/or predictions been clearly and concisely stated?
• Is the methodology clear and complete enough to be reproducible?
• Are the statistical and analytical methods presented in a complete and clear format?
• Have the authors provided a sufficient explanation that assumptions of the statistical methods or models that they have used have been adequately met?
• Are the results clearly and completely described in an organized manner?
• Are tables and figures used effectively and appropriately?
• Are the questions posed in the introduction all addressed by the end of the article?
• Have the authors effectively explained their results in the context of the literature?
• Has the study helped to advance knowledge, and if so, have the novel results been appropriately highlighted?
• Have the authors extended their conclusions beyond what their data actually shows, and if so, have the potential limitations of the study been adequately discussed?
• If the study is applied in nature (i.e., the results are relevant to management or policy), have the authors proposed relevant and reasonable recommendations based on their results?

3. Overall assessment

• Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
• Does the author’s interpretation of the results make sense? Are you convinced by the conclusions being drawn?
• Is speculation clearly delineated as such?
• Is the article well-written, concise, and easy to understand?
• Is the research both original and relevant? Does it advance science?

4. Formatting the review

a) should begin with a brief summary of the research done, its conclusions, and its contributions to the field. This assures both the editor and the author(s) that you have read and understood their work.

b) go through any major criticisms and “big picture” general comments you have, based on the questions above and any other significant scientific or structural problems.

c) then move on to minor issues such as labeling, formatting, references and citations, grammar, and so on.

Try to put yourself in the place of the author. Provide constructive feedback that you would like to receive.

5. Recommendations: Options are in most cases, are ‘Accept’, ‘Accept with minor revisions’, ‘Accept with major revisions’, or ‘Reject’. Accepting a paper with no revisions at all is rare.

a) More likely, you’ll find at least some small issues or necessary changes to the text, such as a concept that needs further explanation or a conclusion requiring clarification. But what if more than this is necessary?

b) You have the option of recommending major revisions, which can include further experiments or a substantial re-write and resubmission of the paper.

Ref: http://blog.cdnsciencepub.com/how-to-write-a-scientific-peer-review-a-guide-for-the-new-reviewer/

Hi Ahmed - I've reviewed for 40 plus journals over the past 20 years plus,

Writing a peer review is always a more difficult and more complex a task than initially contemplated.

By 'points' - do you mean via Publons etc?

Best,

Dean

Thanks Dr. Dean for your reply, I meant the outline for peer review in general. I have around 60 reviews along this year in different Journals and publishers, and totally agree with you that the review process is not an easy mission and it might differ from journal to another.

So, let's take Publons as an example.

I always correct grammar as well, so it's a long process for me!

Hi! interesting topic. I start with a main section which include a short description of the subject of the manuscript and its main findings, usually on a positive note (e. G. The topic is of interest). This is useful for the authors for understanding the strength of the manuscript. I usually comment on the novelty of the manuscript. Then I describe two or three major concerns, the point that need to be addressed for acceptance. These usually involve collecting new data or reanalyzing data and may change also the discussion. At the end I always state If the manuscript is well/poorly written and/or organized. If I recommended rejection I usually stop here.

Then I start with the comments to specific parts of the manuscript. For each I indicate page and line to which the commenti refers. I do not forget to comment figures and tables and state If the references are too few. Very often I cite a couple of references that should be considered by the authors.

1. Acceptance

Accepting the invitation to review: Ask yourself whether you are the right person for the job:

a) Do you have the time to spend several hours reading over and developing a position on this paper?

b) Do you have enough familiarity with the field of study and the methods being used to be able to critically evaluate them?

2. Critical reading:

• Is the paper well-organized, with the various sections properly separated
• Do the authors provide a reasonably thorough summary of the literature?
• Has the research question, hypothesis, and/or predictions been clearly and concisely stated?
• Is the methodology clear and complete enough to be reproducible?
• Are the statistical and analytical methods presented in a complete and clear format?
• Have the authors provided a sufficient explanation that assumptions of the statistical methods or models that they have used have been adequately met?
• Are the results clearly and completely described in an organized manner?
• Are tables and figures used effectively and appropriately?
• Are the questions posed in the introduction all addressed by the end of the article?
• Have the authors effectively explained their results in the context of the literature?
• Has the study helped to advance knowledge, and if so, have the novel results been appropriately highlighted?
• Have the authors extended their conclusions beyond what their data actually shows, and if so, have the potential limitations of the study been adequately discussed?
• If the study is applied in nature (i.e., the results are relevant to management or policy), have the authors proposed relevant and reasonable recommendations based on their results?

3. Overall assessment

• Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
• Does the author’s interpretation of the results make sense? Are you convinced by the conclusions being drawn?
• Is speculation clearly delineated as such?
• Is the article well-written, concise, and easy to understand?
• Is the research both original and relevant? Does it advance science?

4. Formatting the review

a) should begin with a brief summary of the research done, its conclusions, and its contributions to the field. This assures both the editor and the author(s) that you have read and understood their work.

b) go through any major criticisms and “big picture” general comments you have, based on the questions above and any other significant scientific or structural problems.

c) then move on to minor issues such as labeling, formatting, references and citations, grammar, and so on.

Try to put yourself in the place of the author. Provide constructive feedback that you would like to receive.

5. Recommendations: Options are in most cases, are ‘Accept’, ‘Accept with minor revisions’, ‘Accept with major revisions’, or ‘Reject’. Accepting a paper with no revisions at all is rare.

a) More likely, you’ll find at least some small issues or necessary changes to the text, such as a concept that needs further explanation or a conclusion requiring clarification. But what if more than this is necessary?

b) You have the option of recommending major revisions, which can include further experiments or a substantial re-write and resubmission of the paper.

Ref: http://blog.cdnsciencepub.com/how-to-write-a-scientific-peer-review-a-guide-for-the-new-reviewer/

Thanks Md Rabiul Alam for sharing this comprehensive information.

Looking forward for more personal thoughts and experience from our colleagues who went through the experience in the field of peer review.

Thanks to all replies from " Md Rabiul Alam Michele Avanzo Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman Dean Whitehead "

I will start to discuss the peer-review process from different perspective;

• The peer-review is considered a certificate that ensures the validity and integrity of the scientific publication process.
• Reviewers or referees are the backbone of the process; ensuring quality, delivering improvements, and safeguarding against ethical breach.
• The best reviewers are those who are knowledgeable, enthusiastic and committed to getting the best for the manuscript.
• Peer-review improves quality of the published paper, ensures previous work is acknowledged, determines the importance of findings, assesses the originality and significance of the work, highlights any omissions in the reference list and any ethics concerns.

2. The perfect peer-reviewer should be selected according to the following:

• Working in the right area of research
• No conflict or interest
• Enthusiastic!
• Experiences
• Available
• Timely
• effective
• Observes the rules
• Fair and objective
• Constructively, not aggressively critical

3. Why reviewers review:

• General interest in a specific area of research
• To have awareness of new research and developments
• Help develop their own research or generating new ideas
• Association with journal and editors
• Keep updated with latest developments

Later I will share my own thoughts to illustrate how to prepare and provide a significant peer review report. Looking forward to share your thoughts as well in the current discussion.

Here is how I perform peer review -- the questions I ask myself before finalizing my feedback to the authors.

Method Performing Peer Review

(I thought that I had already replied to this question, but I do not see a previous answer from me. Sorry if my answer is a dupe.)

Michael W. Marek thank you !

Ahmed H. Maamoun - Thank you for your question. I enclose a paper on the issue of peer-review, and how to prepare a peer-review report. It is also used as a reference guide to peer-reviewers recommended by the Medical Teacher. I enclose a copy.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/0142159X.2012.687488?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Thanks" Samy Azer " for sharing this interesting paper, I found it a comprehensive and important article for anyone interested in volunteering as a peer reviewer.

For colleagues who could not access this article, I will share the outline tips presented in this article regarding the peer-review process structure as follows:

Thanks again Samy Azer for sharing and I totally agree with your perspective presented in your paper.

Reference @ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/0142159X.2012.687488?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Ahmed H. Maamoun - My pleasure, thank you for your comments. I would like to add that there are several methods novice reviewers may use to enhance their skills in the peer-review process. 1) attend training workshops committed only to critical analysis, how to read a research paper and how to become a peer reviewer, 2) talk to your supervisor and express your willingness and interest to help in peer review. He/she might share with you papers under review (in confidence) and asks you to prepare a draft report then give you feedback on your report. Usually, this process is helpful. 3) you could contribute to post-publication peer-review. Some journals have this facility online, and anyone can contribute provided that he/she login (for example, BMJ online version). 4) read other peer review reports such as those published on the BMJ website (post-publication peer review). 5) remember practice and feedback together with reflection are great ways to improve your skills in peer review.

As a peer reviewer, your job is to uphold the quality of published science by ensuring that academic papers are accurate and clearly articulated. Young scientists eager to publish their hard work will appreciate the quality feedback to help them improve their manuscript. Therefore, to be a good peer reviewer you need to be an expert in your field, be fair to the author and journal, meet deadlines, be honest in your opinion, and kind in your criticism...

A common peer review report has the following format:

Summary

Briefly describe the main research question and conclusion, as well as the relevance to the journal. Give its overall strengths and quality as well as any major weaknesses. Start with your positive comments.

Major Issues

These could be flawed research, previously published research, major grammar corrections, insufficient evidence for their conclusions, or ethical issues.

Minor Issues

These include minor corrections such as ambiguous meanings, errors in references, minor factual errors, and suggested modifications to tables and figures.

Recommendation

Give your recommendation with reasons...

https://www.enago.com/academy/how-to-write-a-thorough-peer-review-report/?utm_source=emailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=global

The peer review process is crucial in academic publishing. As a reviewer, you will objectively read the manuscript and provide your expert opinion about whether it is appropriate for publication. You will also identify strengths and weaknesses, which should help the author revise the paper to make it even stronger. Although you are not a copyeditor, you might still point out writing errors or how the manuscript should be reorganized.

see this link https://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Peer-Review-Report

Yasmeen ali Hussien Thanks for sharing this interesting report!

Ahmed H. Maamoun you are welcome

“Publishing the peer-review information alongside a paper adds transparency to the process” - Marc Gillett

Transparency may increase the quality of the peer-review process and could aid teaching of best practice in peer review...

http://email.europascience.com/files/amf_europa_science/project_26/RIfeb20_web.pdf

Thanks Ljubomir Jacić for sharing this article. That is correct, publishing the peer-review report might add more transparency and improve the quality of the review process. Some journals share the peer-review reports after taking permission from the reviewers. However, most reviewers prefer not to declare their information to keep their privacy in this volunteering work.

Dear Ahmed H. Maamoun , this article is questioning the publication of peer review report. Does it affect reviewer's behaviour?

Publishing peer review reports could be a great tool for everyone in the research community. It could help researchers improve the quality of their papers by learning from review reports. Consequently, journals could benefit from receiving submissions of a higher quality. The entire research community should welcome the move to publish peer review reports. Do you agree?

https://www.enago.com/academy/publishing-peer-review-reports-does-it-affect-reviewer-behavior/?utm_source=emailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ea-global-newsletter

Thanks Ljubomir Jacić again for your positive replies and sharing these interesting articles. Personally speaking, I don't mind to make the peer review report published. However, I think it will be more effective for any journal editor to target the selection of qualified reviewers according to the manuscript title. Also, the most important issue for the peer-reviewer is to gain general peer-review regulations, skills, and report writing and that is which we try to target in the current discussion. And finally, the peer-review report publishing will give more fairness and might improve the quality of the published papers.

Looking forward to see more positive sharing from all colleagues in the current discussion.

Dear Ehsan Namaziandost , you should always bring the original resource in order to avoid plagiarism. Here is the link to the resource which you have used to copy...

http://www.phd2published.com/2012/05/09/how-to-write-a-peer-review-for-an-academic-journal-six-steps-from-start-to-finish-by-tanya-golash-boza/

Thanks, Ljubomir Jacić for your professional comments and replies which are significantly supporting and enriching the information in the current discussion.

Really I appreciate all of the informative and positive replies in the current discussion. This encouraged me to try to make it more helpful by establishing RG project under the title of " The guidelines for preparing, organizing, peer-reviewing, and publishing Academic Research" @ https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-guidelines-for-preparing-organizing-peer-reviewing-and-publishing-Academic-Research

This project contains two more discussions to answer the following questions:

1- How to write an abstract and improve your article? @ https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_write_an_abstract_and_improve_your_article

2- How to conduct an effective academic research? @ https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_conduct_an_effective_academic_research_I_appreciate_the_sharing_of_your_experience_and_what_do_you_think_about_the_presented_view

Thanks for sharing in the current discussion and looking forward to your significant input to the other discussions in the new project, Ljubomir Jacić Yasmeen ali Hussien Samy Azer Fadel Lynda Michael W. Marek Md Rabiul Alam Michele Avanzo Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman Dean Whitehead

Thank you for your question. Further to my answers. I would like to direct an invitation. Those interested in conducting peer-review, please forward to me your curriculum vitae. Please showing your qualifications, skills in research, your record of publications, and conference presentations, any experience in peer review work or Publones records, and any scholarly work related to research. Also, the three areas that you can peer review. Thank you.

It's a good question,

I agree with Ljubomir Jacic

I agree with Md Rabiul Alam, Michele Avanzo, Ljubomir Jacić and Samy Azer

Thank you for this important question. I think one of the important thing to be a peer reviewer is to be well qualified to take up this position, otherwise you are cheating yourself, journal editor, and the innocent authors. Therefore, I think prior for a reviewer to accept a manuscript, they MUST ensure that they:

• are familiar with the field and the methods used in the paper.
• have no conflicts of interest.
• have the time to review the paper within the given timelines.

About the wider implications of quality in peer review: peer review as a way to further science!

“From the publishing perspective, quality means that the work is valuable, original, and should be shared with a broader scientific community. Well-written, reproducible studies demonstrate quality. From the reviewer side, quality means that reviewers actually spend time fully reading and digesting an article. Providing constructive feedback to enhance or improve an article is a reviewers duty. Just skimming an article and passing it along as “publish” does not promote quality at the publishing scale. Having a critical, yet supportive eye for reviewing is necessary.”

https://ioppublishing.org/what-does-quality-mean-to-iop-publishing-users/

Dear Ali Haider Mohammed , you MUST cite the original resource in order to avoid copy/paste plagiarism. You have used the following resource:

https://www.enago.com/academy/how-to-write-a-thorough-peer-review-report/

This resource was brought to this thread on January 16th, 2020. Please, do read previous posts.

I have not been a reviewer many times, but I proceeded from that my task is qualified reading and assistance to the author in improvement the text (if it is possible at all). If the article is interesting to me, it is necessary to bring it to such a state that it is interesting to many. Well, if I'm not interested (trivial, secondary...), I'm sorry, dear author... But I am especially careful when I see that the main author is a beginner (this is easily determined), because it is a sin to offend children; they must be taught.

I much appreciate this question. It may be of common interests to many of RG's Scholars. The answers and comments are also pretty good.

Although many journals have their own peer review's criteria, however; the mean value of their peer review is almost similar.

Here is the infograpic about peer-review in one publishing house. It is very efficient one, according to this.

Peer review plays an essential role in maintaining quality across scientific scholarly communications. #IOP_Publishing

https://ioppublishing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Peer-Review-infographics-A3-v6.pdf

In addition to all valuable replies. To write a professional and solid peer review report, the reviewer should understand the principles, forms and functions of peer review. This will form the basis for a comprehensive, well-structured review, in which you can comment on the quality, rigour, and significance of the research paper, and can identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice.

more details can be found in the following link:

https://publons.com/blog/how-to-write-a-peer-review-practical-templates-expert-examples-and-free-training-courses/