Getting involved in peer review

We’ve taken you through the process of writing an abstract, then an article and understanding the publication process. A critical part of the publication process is peer review, and a critical part of the peer review process is the reviewers. You may think that you need to be an established academic expert to be able to review a paper that has been submitted for publication, but that isn’t the case. The more articles you publish and the more conferences that you attend and present at, the wider your network will become and the more likely you are to come to the attention of editors who are constantly trying to find suitable reviewers for their submissions.

You don’t have to wait to be found – if there is a particular journal that you read or submit to regularly, for example in your specialty area, you can contact the editor outlining your areas of expertise and attaching your CV and say that you are interested in joining their review panel.

Many journals will also support you through your first few peer reviews, and most have guidance for reviewers that is either accessible from their website or that they will send you when you have agreed to review an article for them.

If you are interested in peer reviewing, it is worth discussing with your line manager, mentor or any colleagues who you know have done this to get their thoughts on the process.

Should you review this paper?

When you receive an invitation to review a paper, you need to consider a few points before you accept.

1. Am I the right person to review this paper?
2. Can I meet the editor’s timelines?
3. Can I provide an objective review of this paper?

If you’re not sure about any one of these points, for example, if you’re not sure you have the required expertise for the topic, or if you have a competing interest, you can contact the editor to discuss your queries. You should decline the invitation if an outside observer might reasonably feel that your review was negatively or positively biased by a competing interest.

 If you decline the invitation for any of these reasons, it is a good idea to let the editor know why, so that they are aware of these for future papers. If you are able to suggest a colleague who might be able to review it, that will always be appreciated, as editors are keen to keep the peer review process moving as quickly as possible.

Before you start reading

When you have accepted an invitation, make sure you are clear about how the journal wants you to submit your review, and whether they have a set format which they want you to use. If the journal has specific guidelines for reviewers, make sure you read them carefully – this can help make sure you don’t miss anything or do more work than is needed. If your review will be submitted via an online manuscript management system, make sure that you have the correct log in details and that you can access the correct parts of the system, so that this doesn’t delay you once you’ve written your review and are ready to submit it to the editor.
 

Get going

You have two main roles as a peer reviewer – you are assessing whether the author’s paper supports the claims that they are making, and you are helping the journal’s editor to decide whether this paper is suitable for publication in this particular journal.

When you first start reading this paper, it is helpful to try and clarify:

1. What is the main research question?
2. What did the authors do to answer this question?
3. How does the study fit in with what is already known in the literature?
4. What are the main findings of the study and, importantly, what evidence do the authors give to support these?

You are likely to need to read the paper at least a couple of times. Some people prefer to read the paper from start to finish, while others might take it in a different order – looking at the abstract and introduction to see what the authors are setting out to do, then looking at the results (along with any figures and tables) to see what they actually found out, and then seeing what conclusions they draw from these results. Make sure you take plenty of notes while you are reading as this will help you when you are writing your review.

Other things you might want to think about while reviewing the paper are:

Clarity and quality of writing – this doesn’t mean that you need to edit the article as you might do a colleague’s document, but if the writing needs to be improved, a statement saying that is helpful for the editor.

Plagiarism – most journals use software to detect plagiarism, but there is no substitute for professional knowledge. If you suspect that parts of an article have been plagiarised, let the editor know immediately. If there is a separate section of the review form for confidential comments to the editor, include your concerns there as well.

References – are these current? Are there any obvious omissions that you would expect to see given the topic of the article?

Once you have covered this, read the journal’s publication criteria and reviewers’ guidelines again before you make your decision and write your review.
 

Writing your review

Remember – your review will have two different readers – the editor and the authors. If the peer review process is double blind, your review will be anonymised before it is sent to the authors. The editor may not include all of your comments if some of them relate to points that will be sorted out in the editorial process – the editor is keen to make it as straightforward as possible for the author to revise the article.

Whatever the requirements of the specific journal, your review is likely to consist of three main parts:

• Summary of the research, your overall impressions and your recommendation for the editor. Major issues – aspects that are fundamental for this paper and need to be addressed before the work could be considered suitable for publication
• Minor issues – aspects that would improve the impact of the work if it were published, such as data presentation, typos and grammatical issues, or additional references that might be needed.

Make sure that your comments are clear, constructive and consistent, as this will help the editor and authors. If there are aspects of the paper that you like or are impressed with, don’t be afraid to state this too, as this is equally important for both editor and authors.

Once you have done this and checked the guidelines, you are ready to submit your review. Do try and stick to the deadlines, and if you’re going to need longer, tell the editor so that they know what to expect. You are more likely to be asked to review papers in future if you write a constructive review and if you submit it on time.
 

Further reading

PLOS Peer Review Center (2025) PLOS – For Reviewers. https://plos.org/resources/for-reviewers/ (accessed 6 August 2025)

Sear R (2020) What makes a good or a bad peer review? Tips for excelling at reviewing. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2020/02/what-makes-a-good-or-bad-peer-review/ (accessed 6 August 2025)