Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Writing Constructive Peer Review Reports – JPHMP Direct (Erika Martin & Justin B. Moore | August 2022)

Posted by Connar Allen in Research Integrity on December 5, 2022
Keywords: Good practice, Journal, Peer review, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On August 29, 2022

A circle of person pins with speech bubbles around the heading "PEER REVIEW"

In this post, we explain what you can gain from providing peer reviews and tips on how to write constructive reports.

Peer review is an integral part of the academic writing process. In our last two posts, we demystified the peer review process and how to handle revisions as an author.

Excellent peer reviews are so essential to science and scientific publishing, but it’s not always easy to find guidance and material to assist you to write high-quality reviews.  This post offers some excellent advice to help you find your practice when it comes to the writing of a review.  This is a recommended read for researchers of all career stages, but especially for HDR candidates and early career researchers.  We have included a long list of related items.

At some point, you will be on the other side of the desk and asked to serve as a peer reviewer. In this post, we explain what you can gain from providing peer reviews and tips on how to write constructive reports.

Why is it important to be a peer reviewer?

First and foremost, peer review is the backbone to ensuring scientific integrity in published manuscripts. As we describe in our post about how the peer review process works, the managing editor does an initial determination of a manuscript’s fit for the journal and worthiness for peer review, but thereafter relies on the reports from peer reviewers. The reviewers are critical to assessing whether the research has solid methodology, provides sound conclusions, is important to the field, is relevant to the journal’s audience, and meets ethical standards. The peer reviews can also enhance the quality of the work.

Second, journals cannot function without peer reviewers. At some point, all authors have experienced frustrating delays in the peer review process. In some instances, the fault is with editors; for example, we have experienced occasional issues with our own articles being “lost” in a journal’s system or editors taking months to make determinations after receiving the peer review reports. But in most instances, delays are due to editors’ chronic challenges with soliciting peer reviews that are timely and of sufficient quality to make a determination. Delays in providing manuscript determinations can in turn damage a journal’s reputation. There are some journals that we will not submit to anymore following our own and our colleagues’ bad experiences. (JPHMP is not on that list!) If you want to participate in academic publishing and have your own work reviewed, you have a professional obligation to serve as a peer reviewer.

Writing Constructive Peer Review Reports - JPHMP Direct
In this post, we explain what you can gain from providing peer reviews and tips on how to write constructive reports.

Related Reading

Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review (Papers: Federico et al. | June 2022)

(Australia) Retraction inaction: How the pandemic has exposed frailties in scientific publishing – Monash University (Steve Mcdonald | October 2022)

Is peer review failing: Cosmos talks to the experts – Cosmos Weekly (Clare Kenyon | October 2022)

Opening the Black Box of Peer Review – Physics (Simine Vazire | December 2021)

Preprints and open peer review come of age – Research Information (February 2022)

The peer review system is broken. We asked academics how to fix it – The Conversation (Kelly-Ann Allen, et al | July 2022)

Open peer review is the key to tackling public health misinformation – Times Higher Education (Rebecca Lawrence | June 2022)

Improving peer review on many fronts – Nature (Editorial | May 2022)

Is anonymity or transparency the best solution to bias in peer review? – Times Higher Education (Kim Eggleton | March 2022)

Peer review will only improve if journals’ decisions are audited – Times Higher Education (Arfan Ghani | February 2022)

Preprints ‘largely unchanged’ by peer review, even during Covid – Times Higher Education (Simon Baker | February 2022)

It is time to start paying peer reviewers – Times Higher Education (Adrian Furnham | October 2021)

Should I include studies from “predatory” journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers (Papers: Zachary Munn, et al | June 2021)

Let’s Talk About the Volunteers in Scholarly Publishing – Scholarly Kitchen (Haseeb Irfanullah | July 2021)

Scientists, Publishers Debate Paychecks for Peer Reviewers – The Scientist (Shawna Williams | November 2020)

The Absurdity of Peer Review – Elemental (Mark Humphries | June 2021)

Why I Won’t Review or Write for Elsevier and Other Commercial Scientific Journals – The Sciences (T.R. Shankar Raman | April 2021)

The $450 question: Should journals pay peer reviewers? – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | March 2021)

‘Conference organizers have ignored this:’ How common is plagiarism and duplication in abstracts? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | February 2021)

Richard Smith: Peer reviewers—time for mass rebellion? – BMJ Opinion (Richard Smith | February 2021)

Scientists Need to Be Kinder to One Another – Scientific American (Naomi Oreskes | February 2021 issue)

Towards a Shared Peer-Review Taxonomy: An interview with Joris van Rossum and Lois Jones – Scholarly Kitchen (Phill Jones | December 2020)

The 450 Movement – James Heathers blog (James Heathers | September 2020)

On Clarifying the Goals of a Peer Review Taxonomy – Scholarly Kitchen (Micah Altman & Philip N. Cohenoct | October 2020)

Don’t be a prig in peer review

Quantifying professionalism in peer review (Papers: Travis G. Gerwing, et al | July 2020)

What are innovations in peer review and editorial assessment for? (Papers: Willem Halffman & Serge P.J.M Horbach | May 2020)

The peer review crisis – Financial Post

‘An isolated incident’: Should reviewers check references? – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2020)

Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | August 2020)

Revisiting: The Problem(s) With Credit for Peer Review

COPE Forum 2 June 2020: What does peer review mean in the arts, humanities and social sciences? – COPE (June 2020)

Opinion: Exorcising Ghostwriting from Peer Review – TheScientist (James L. Sherley | January 2020)

Rude paper reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful, study find – Science (Christie Wilcox | December 2019)

Peer Review (NHMRC An Australian Code (2018) good practice guide | August 2019)

How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer – Scholarly Kitchen (Jasmine Wallace | September 2019)

Technological Support for Peer Review Innovations – Scholarly Kitchen (Jessica Polka | March 2019)

Junior researchers are losing out by ghostwriting peer reviews – Nature (Virginia Gewin | May 2019)

Reviewer-coerced citation: Case report, update on journal policy, and suggestions for future prevention (Papers: Jonathan D Wren, et al | January 2019)

Peer-review experiments tracked in online repository – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | March 2019)

We need to relearn how to play nice in peer review – UA/AU (Daniel Harris | March 2019)

Rare trial of open peer review allays common concerns – Nature (Dalmeet Singh Chawla | February 2019)

Tips for negotiating the peer-reviewed journal publication process as an early-career researcher – LSE Impact Blog (Margaret K. Merga, et al | November 2018)

Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud? – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | December 2018)

Why Cell Systems is publishing Peer Reviews – Crosstalk (Carly Britton | December 2018)

Kinder Peer Review – Scientists Are Humans (Dr Rebecca Kirk | November 2018)

How Do We Move Towards Better Peer Review? – The Wiley Network (Elizabeth Moylan | September 2018)

The Rise of Peer Review: Melinda Baldwin on the History of Refereeing at Scientific Journals and Funding Bodies – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | September 2018)

The Evolution and Critical Role of Peer Review in Academic Publishing – The Wiley Network (Marilyn Pollett | September 2018)

Opening up peer review – Science (Editorial – August 2018)

Peer Review – Authors and Reviewers – our “North Star” – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | May 2018)

The pros and cons of publishing peer reviews – Crosstalk (Deborah Sweet | May 2018)

Uncovering new peer review problems – this time at The BMJ – Health News Review (April 2018)

Metrics, recognition, and rewards: it’s time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers – LSE Impact Blog (Rebecca Lawrence | November 2017)

Portable Peer Review RIP – Scholarly Kitchen (Phil Davis – September 2017)

Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors? (Papers: Maciej J. Mrowinski, et al | September 2017)

COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews?

What changed? Transparency in a table to highlight the value of peer review – Crosstalk (Deborah Sweet | September 2017)

Towards a more transparent and collaborative review process – Crosstalk (Milka Kostic | September 2017)

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts? – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | August 2017)

Upholding Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics – Wiley Exchanges (Chris Graf | July 2017)

How to be a great reviewer for a research paper – Crosslink (Milka Kostic | August 2017)

Reviewing review articles, part 2: The how – CrossTalk (Matt Pavlovich | August 2017)

Reviewing review articles, part 1: The who and why – CrossTalk (Matt Pavlovich | July 2017)

What Does Transparent Peer Review Mean and Why is it Important? – Scholarly Kitchen (Alice Meadows | August 2017)

(China) Fake peer review, forged authors, fake funding: Everything’s wrong with brain cancer paper – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | July 2017)

How to critically evaluate a manuscript: 12 questions you should always ask yourself – Publons (Tom Culley | April 2017)

What Constitutes Peer Review of Data? A Survey of Peer Review Guidelines – Scholarly Kitchen (Todd A Carpenter | April 2017)

Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution (Papers: Charles W. Fox, et al | 2017)

Standing up for peer review – CrossTALK (Emilie Marcus: September 2016)

Peer Review Week: Should we use double blind peer review? The evidence… – methods.blog (Bob O’H: September 2016)

Would peer review work better if reviewers talked to each other? – Retraction Watch (Dalmeet Singh Chawla September 2016)

Recognition for peer review and editing in Australia – and beyond? (Papers: Alice Meadows 2015)

Publish and be cited! Impact Factors, Open Access, and the plight of peer review – OUP Blog (Catherine Cotton September)

Robot-Written Peer Reviews – Inside Higher Ed (Jack Grove September 2016)

Handbook of Best Practices in Peer Review Published (Guidance)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in