Just be honest; if you do not understand the paper, please write the editors and decline. There is nothing wrong with saying that you do not understand the article or indicating that this is not an area you are comfortable with reviewing. Don't attempt to impress the editor because the editor will never remember you.

I would like to suggest that you perform three readings of a paper, concentrating on a different element each time. At every point, remember to classify your comments as major or minor flaws. Major flaws will need considerable time to explain or correct.

I suggest that you read the very good - and brand new - book on how to write technical papers, as well as on how to assess them. The link below takes you the new edition.

https://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~higham/hwms/

Many publishers have materials to guide the review process. I suggest you review some of them, for example:

• https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/howtopeerreview
• https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/index.html

Although each publisher has its particularities, the review process is similar.

The hardest part of being a reviewer is, of course, that you need to be very well updated on the topics that are current, classical, as well as emerging. That is something that might take years to grasp, and all the while the topics move on in various directions, as well as grow - so this is not the easiest task that you can imagine.

On the other hand, you simply MUST volunteer to take on refereeing assignments, if you know that the manuscript you have received lies in your discipline - otherwise no papers can be published!

I have done 400+ peer reviews of papers, and plenty of reviews of published papers in Math Reviews, and that this is something that is as important as to publish - we need to make sure that the connections that we know are there do not become disconnected. One action is to make sure that every paper that is relevant here and now for the review is mentioned. That way we can make sure that we have a fair overview of our field.

Just be honest; if you do not understand the paper, please write the editors and decline. There is nothing wrong with saying that you do not understand the article or indicating that this is not an area you are comfortable with reviewing. Don't attempt to impress the editor because the editor will never remember you.

Ismael Joseph: This is just my personal opinion based on long-time experience: You should accept invitation to review manuscripts of other researchers only if you are already a proven expert in your field of research. This means that you must have a good overview of the field and know which results are exciting and which others are routine. Moreover, you should have published a number of peer-reviewed papers in your area of research yourself. My personal feeling is that for a graduate student it is much more important to publish own results than to get involved in peer-reviewing.

I helped my local boss in 1989 - he was also the principal of the university, in fact - with two manuscripts that he had been asked to review, and he gave them to me. That was not more than a Month or so into my PhD studies, so I knew very little. But with my supervisor's help, I grasped what to do. In fact I became a pretty good evaluator rather quickly, and have by now done roughly 400 of them! And that means that I have most certainly devoted more than half a year or more to this type of duty.

And so shall YOU, lest the system of peer review will collapse.

Dear Ismael Joseph,

Publons is the largest platform of peer reviewers in the worlde (https://publons.com/academy) offers to PhD students and early-career scientists use Publons une opportunity to demonstrating their expertise by writing post-publication reviews of any articles they ' ve read. I invite you to enroll now for the Publons Academy, a free service to help train reviewers and deepen the international reviewer pool with skilled graduates. In the course you will learn from and work with experienced peer reviewers, journal editors, and Nobel Prize winners to gain experience in writing great peer reviews.

Peer reviewing made easy

Thank you for your answers, recommendations and suggestions

There are many common things to know other than scientific knowledge. I suggest you enrol a peer-reviewer course on Publons. Recently, I graduated from Publons academy and I found it very useful and informative. Interestingly, due course I got 2 invitation from IF journals which really motivate me. For me, Publons is an excellent platform to polish our reviewing skills under the supervision of a mentor.

Peer reviewing is never easy, as no manuscript is spot-on, and done, without some corrections. Some are way harder than others - especially when the handling of the Queen's English is thrown out the window, which it also is to a higher and higher degree every year. There are only a few exceptions, and I know them well. Hence I hesitate to take on a manuscript from a not-so meticulous journal. But we all need to perform that duty - as without it, the ship will sink. I have now done over 400.

I have learned from all of your contributions. Thank you.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading. Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

(https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html)

Here is a guide:

Article “Subben׳s checklist” and the assessment of articles in mathe...

Your relevant contributions to this discussion are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your contributions.

Assuming you have already decided you are familiar enough with the topic to be a genuine "peer", here is what I would recommend you focus on. First, content: the paper should have a clear thesis, a clear theoretical framework, and should clearly express the unique contribution it makes to the field and/or the gap in existing literature it fills. Second, research: the paper should show knowledge of and engagement with a wide range of relevant related literature. Third, expression: the paper should be clear, readable, and engaging. When you write the report, don't be the dreaded reviewer B - it can be very easy to focus on criticism and negative points, but remember your aim as a reviewer is to help the author reach publication standard. Point out what the author does well as well as any problems. Where you do point out problems, make sure you provide concrete suggestions for the author about how to resolve them.

I write about academic publishing, including peer-review, in my newsletters and blog posts pretty frequently, so if you think you might be interested in advice on these subjects you can sign up for free on my website: www.readwriteperfect.com. Make sure to tick the "academic editing" box when you sign up.

Good luck with your peer-review!

Ismael Joseph check out this useful website in which the ACS (American Chemical Society) provides peer review training for scientific researchers:

https://www.acsreviewerlab.org

Peer review article demand for high-quality research articles collection, vast thorough knowledge of the area, and the expertise to utilized it in a fruitful manner. Ismael Joseph

Good knowledge to provide a robust review. A glance through the abstract can help one form an opinion if to accept a review or not.

I agree with Stanley Ebhohimhen Abhadiomhen