1. Review the research before the writing style
Start by identifying the question, contribution, methods, evidence, and interpretation. A beautifully written paper can still have a weak research question or an unsupported conclusion, so the first pass should focus on validity and clarity rather than sentence-level preferences.
| Layer | Question to ask | Useful comment |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Is it specific and answerable? | “The question needs a clearer population and outcome.” |
| Contribution | What does this add? | “The paper summarizes prior work but needs a sharper contribution.” |
| Methods | Could someone reproduce or audit it? | “Add databases, dates, search strings, and exclusion criteria.” |
| Evidence | Do the claims match the sources or data? | “This paragraph makes a causal claim from cross-sectional evidence.” |
| Interpretation | Are the limits honest? | “Distinguish what the project suggests from what it demonstrates.” |
2. Structure the review so the writer knows what matters most
Summary
In two or three sentences, restate the research question, method, and main claim. This confirms that you understood the draft.
Major strength
Name the strongest part of the work and explain why it works.
Major concern 1
Identify the issue that most affects validity, contribution, or interpretation.
Major concern 2
Identify the next most important issue at the method, evidence, structure, or framing level.
Minor comments
Group wording, citation, formatting, table/figure, and clarity issues so they do not bury the major concerns.
Recommendation
State whether the work needs minor revision, major revision, or is not yet ready for external submission.
3. Replace vague reactions with actionable comments
| VAGUE | ACTIONABLE |
|---|---|
| “This is confusing.” | “The paragraph introduces ‘research readiness’ but does not define whether it means skills, outputs, confidence, or lab affiliation.” |
| VAGUE | ACTIONABLE |
|---|---|
| “Methods are vague.” | “State the databases, search dates, search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and how borderline studies were handled.” |
4. Respond to peer review like a researcher
A response to review should show exactly what changed and where. You do not have to accept every comment, but you should explain your decision respectfully and acknowledge any boundary the review exposed.
| Situation | A professional response |
|---|---|
| You agree | “Thank you. We revised [section] to [specific change].” |
| You partly agree | “We revised [part]. We did not add [suggestion] because [scope/data limit], but we now acknowledge the limitation.” |
| You cannot implement it | “We cannot address this directly because [reason]. We clarified this boundary in [section].” |
5. Keep review ethical
Treat drafts as confidential within the review group. Declare conflicts of interest or areas where you lack expertise. Critique the work, not the writer. Separate necessary validity fixes from personal style preferences, and do not rewrite another person’s paper into your own voice unless the writer explicitly asks for that kind of help.
Helpful standards & references
These are starting points, not substitutes for the requirements of a specific journal, conference, institution, or research team.
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/