ORIGINAL ARTICLE Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers
Authors: Travis I. Lovejoy, M.S., M.P.H. & Tracey A. Revenson, Ph.D. & Christopher R. France, Ph.D.
Published online: 20 April 2011
Publisher: The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2011
Abstract
Background: Peer review is essential in advancing science, yet the training for conducting peer reviews is often inadequate for doctoral students and early professionals.
Purpose: To provide an overview of the peer-review process at the Annals of Behavioral Medicine and describe elements of high-quality reviews.
Conclusion: The article provides exemplar reviews of a high-quality manuscript and commentary on review aspects.
Keywords
Peer review
Introduction
Historical Context: Scientific peer review began in the 1700s and has been critical for the publication of behavioral science research for over 75 years.
Current Trends: With the rise in scientific journals and technological advancements, the volume of scientific publishing has significantly increased, leading to greater demand for expert reviewers.
Challenges: Reviewing is often unpaid and voluntary, making formal training rare in graduate programs.
Author Note
Authors' Experience: The authors collectively have extensive experience in writing, receiving, and editing reviews.
Travis I. Lovejoy: Graduate student and pre-doctoral intern at Portland VA Medical Center; conducted over 15 peer reviews.
Tracey A. Revenson: Founding Editor-in-Chief of Women’s Health, Associate Editor of Annals of Behavioral Medicine, teaches publication process courses.
Christopher R. France: Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Behavioral Medicine; has served in various editorial roles.
Deficits in Reviewer Training
Many early career professionals have little formal training in peer review, leading to self-taught practices or informal mentorship models.
The article addresses the training gap and provides resources for reviewers.
Overview of the Peer Review Process
Key Roles: Include the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board Members, Ad Hoc Reviewers, and the Managing Editor.
Editor-in-Chief: Responsible for content. Oversees ultimate publication decision.
Associate Editors: Manage manuscript assignments, select reviewers, recommend publication decisions.
Managing Editor: Coordinates review processes, communicates with authors, manages publication logistics.
Submission Process
Manuscript submission via the online system (www.editorialmanager.com/abm).
Managing Editor reviews for compliance with journal guidelines; assesses manuscript relevance.
Editor assigns manuscript to an Associate Editor based on expertise.
Review Selection Process
Reviewers are chosen based on expertise, availability, and review history; efforts are made not to overwhelm seasoned reviewers with frequent tasks.
Actions include using electronic databases and considering author suggestions but rely on Associate Editors’ discretion.
Correspondence and Decision Letters
Action Editors send decision letters categorized as:
Rejection
Major revisions
Minor revisions
Initial acceptance, pending editor approval
Revision Requests
Authors have 90 days to revise post-revision requests, with feedback indicating whether revisions can address significant study design issues.
Revision steps mirror new submission protocols, ensuring quality checks after alterations.
Reviewer's Experience and Responsibilities
Reviewers are not asked to make publication decisions directly but to provide constructive feedback.
Reviews should help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts while maintaining a respectful and professional tone.
Becoming a Reviewer: Identifying Expertise
Potential reviewers should be selective in declaring areas of expertise to ensure quality reviews and avoid conflicts of interest (e.g., personal biases, affiliations with authors).
It is advised to limit self-identification to 2-3 core areas relevant to one's research publications.
Inviting Reviews
Upon inviting a review, assess potential conflicts of interest and confirm availability to meet deadlines. Declining invitations promptly allows for timely manuscript progression.
Critical Reading of Manuscripts
Recommended approach includes an initial read without annotations for overall assessment followed by a detailed review with commentary.
Familiarizing oneself with related literature can assist in contextualizing the manuscript but is not mandatory.
Drafting the Review
Overall Framework
The primary roles of the reviewer include:
Serving as a consultant to Action Editors.
Providing feedback to enhance the manuscript’s scientific merit.
Noteworthy guidelines include:
Avoiding publishability judgments in reviewer comments.
Focusing on constructive feedback; avoiding pejorative language.
Structuring the Review
Reviews should start with an opening paragraph summing overall thoughts, emphasizing both strengths and weaknesses. Major issues should be highlighted at the outset.
Organizing feedback as major and minor concerns can be helpful, and reviewers are encouraged to number their issues for ease of reference.
Manuscript Sections - Specific Considerations
Title and Abstract
Should accurately reflect the study and include relevant keywords; clear communication is preferred over clever phrasing.
Introduction
Needs to present a strong rationale for the study and include relevant literature, detecting gaps that may weaken the authors' arguments.
Method
Critiques should focus on whether the methodological design fits the research questions. Careful evaluation of statistical methods and clarity in operationalization of constructs is crucial.
Results
Findings should be clear and comprehensive, with all processes carried out described sufficiently.
Reviewers must question the presentation of the results and the appropriateness of statistical techniques utilized.
Discussion
Reviewers should scrutinize the explanations offered for findings, ensuring comprehensive discussion of limitations and implications is present.
Tables and Figures
Should enhance readability and clarity but remain concise. Over-complication or replication of data should be avoided.
Miscellaneous Considerations
Review Length: Ideal length varies but generally, 1.5 to 2 pages is sufficient unless warranted differently.
International Sensitivity: Acknowledge the potential language barrier and promote respectful communication.
Copy Editing: Focus on significant manuscript aspects over minor errors, which should be addressed during publication.
Final Thoughts on Reviewer Identity and Submission
Anonymity is encouraged to maintain objectivity.
Submission includes providing publication recommendations to Action Editors, with private comments allowed for feedback on methodologies or alternative outlets.
Post-Submission Processes
After reviews, Action Editors reconcile reviewer opinions and communicate outcome letters to authors, benefitting reviewers by exposing them to diverse perspectives on the same manuscript.
Addressing Revised Manuscripts
Reviewers are tasked with assessing how well authors addressed previous critiques; this is approached variably but should ensure clarity and completion in final submissions.
Credit for Review Contribution
Collaborative reviews should be communicated early on for appropriate credit in the journal system.
Do's and Don'ts of the Review Process
Do express enthusiasm; Don’t disclose your publication recommendations.
Do maintain consistency in comments; Don’t contradict your recommendations.
Do provide detailed critiques for revisions; Don’t dwell on minor issues in rejection cases.
Do emphasize significant contributions for revision; Don’t recommend revisions for low-value additions.
Do reference specific content clearly; Don’t make vague or unsupported claims.
Do specify needed changes; Don’t leave authors in the dark.
Do engage in thorough readings; Don’t rush into conclusions after first impressions.
Do proofread your reviews; Don’t submit hurriedly.
Do treat authors as equals; Don’t belittle them regardless of submission quality.
Example Review Process
An example submission that received a minor revision and subsequent acceptance highlights helpful feedback and embraces high-quality peer reviewing practices.
Conclusion
The article emphasizes the critical role of peer review in academic advancement and encourages formal training to enhance peer reviewing skills, which is a learned and cultivated ability. Mentorship opportunities should be sought to develop subsequent generations of peer reviewers.
Conflict of Interest Statement
Authors: No conflicts of interest disclosed.
Appendices
Appendix A:
Action letter for initial submission.
Appendix B:
Action letter for revised submission.
References
Suls J, Martin R. The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009, 4:40–50.
Cooper ML. Problems, pitfalls, and promise of the peer-review process: Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009). Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009; 4: 84–90.
Benos DJ, Kirk KL, Hall JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ. 2003; 27: 47–52.
Diener E. Being a good reviewer. Dialogue. 2006; 21: 23.
Drotar D. Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009; 34: 113–117.
Frieze IH. Doing an excellent review of a Sex Roles paper. Sex Roles. 2010; 62: 293.
Moher D, Jadad AR. How to peer review a manuscript. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in the health sciences. London: BMJ Books; 2003: 183–190.
Tesser A, Martin L. Reviewing empirical submissions to journals. In: Sternberg RJ, ed. Reviewing scientific works in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2005: 3–29.
Fiske DW, Fogg L. But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. Am Psychol. 1990; 45: 591–598.
Epstein S. What can be done to improve the journal review process? Am Psychol. 1995; 50: 883–885.
Lewin K. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1951.
Bogart LM, Wagner GJ, Galvan FH, Klein DJ. Longitudinal relationships between antiretroviral treatment adherence and discrimination due to HIV-serostatus, race, and sexual orientation among African-American men with HIV. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40: 184–190.