Categories
Scientific Writing

How to Write a Peer Review Report (Real Example)

Are you curious about how to write a peer review report?

Grab your note-taking app and pay close attention.

In this article, I’ll walk you through 7 simple steps to structure your peer review report and highlight what you need to consider. I’ll also provide examples from my own reviews, which you can adapt for your use.

What is a Peer Review?

A peer review is an anonymous evaluation report on an academic paper. Writing reviews is a routine part of research work.

Peer review processes are also sometimes simulated in university seminars as graded assignments. Writing a peer review is a crucial skill for academics; let’s explore how to do it effectively.

writing a peer review

Step 1: Overview

In the academic world, it’s customary to thank the editors for the opportunity to write a review. You can also start your peer review report with a brief summary.

“Thank you for the opportunity to review this submission. The paper, ‘Virtual Reality in Digital Education: A Network Affordance Perspective on Effective Use,’ aims to enhance our understanding of using immersive technologies in digital learning environments. It reports the results of an interview study and develops a theoretical framework to help educators integrate Virtual Reality into their curriculum.”

Step 2: Your Expertise

Next, it’s essential to note that a review is always anonymous. The authors, and especially the editors who summarize the reviews, should know about your expertise in the specific research topic.

Dedicate 1-2 sentences to describe your background in this area. You can also briefly mention how you will structure your review.

“I commend the authors for their successful paper and the results of an interesting empirical study. Having contributed to several studies in Virtual Reality myself, I consider my expertise significant. However, as I primarily use quantitative methods, I will focus less on methodology in this review and ask the editors to consider other reviewers’ opinions on this aspect. To provide the most useful feedback for improving this paper, I have divided my review into three main areas of critique.”

Step 3: Main Sections of Your Peer Review Report

There are two ways to structure the main body of your review. You can go chronologically through the paper and provide feedback on each section (introduction, literature review, results, etc.). However, this is not the approach that real professionals use, so you shouldn’t start with it.

In learning how to write a peer review, I recommend using your major points of criticism as structuring elements. For example:

#1 Theoretical Motivation of the Study
…

#2 Lack of Transparency in Method Description
…

#3 Missing Theoretical Contribution
…”

You may have 5 or 6 main points, but no more. These should be equally weighted. Write a similar amount for each main point.

writing a peer review 2

Step 4: Constructive Criticism

In your critique, it’s essential to consider three things:

  1. Positives For each main point, start by mentioning what you liked. When writing reviews, it’s easy to drift into very harsh criticism. Imagine how hard it can be for the authors, who have put a lot of work into their paper.
  2. Negatives Then, bring up your criticism, but remain objective. Specify the parts of the text you had issues with, so the authors can quickly find and revise them.
  3. Suggestions for Improvement This is the most crucial part. The quality of a review is determined by how constructive its improvement suggestions are. Provide as many specific suggestions for each point of criticism as you can. Recommend literature, better arguments, or methodological approaches that you know but found lacking in the paper.

Step 5: Minor Points

These are less dramatic points but caught your attention while reading. They can be linguistic inconsistencies or citation errors. Create a small list of these points and indicate the pages.

“Here are some additional points:

  • ‘affect’ should be ‘effect’ (p.2)
  • ‘their’ should be ‘there’ (p.3)
  • The direct quote on p.4 lacks a page number

If there are too many minor errors, you don’t need to list them all. You’re not a proofreader, but a reviewer. Make a general comment like:

“There are numerous minor errors throughout the manuscript. A professional proofreading service should address these.”

Step 6: References

Yes, you heard right. A truly professional review includes a short reference list. Here, you list all sources you cited to support your critique or recommended to the authors. This small but significant detail elevates a mediocre review to a very good one.

This makes it as easy as possible for the authors to address your critique. They can read the sources you cited and tackle the points you raised. This can be a general guideline when writing reviews: Make it as easy as possible for the authors to implement your suggestions!

Whoever reviews YOUR review will be impressed!

writing a peer review 3

Step 7: The Recommendation

Finally, you need to make a decision. What is your recommendation? Should the submission be rejected? Or should it proceed to the next round (major/minor revisions)? Or can it be accepted immediately?

Your recommendation should ideally not be directly in your review text. This makes it easier for the person summarizing all reviews. As a reviewer, you make a recommendation, but the final decision is not yours. If you recommend rejection, but all other reviewers disagree, your critique still needs to be addressed.

A concluding section might look like this:

“In summary, this paper addresses an interesting case for implementing Virtual Reality in digital education. Unfortunately, in its current state, it shows fundamental weaknesses, such as in theoretical motivation, transparency in methodological implementation, and theoretical contribution. I hope my critique helps the authors improve their work and find something useful in this review. Best of luck in developing this study further.”

As you can see, the recommendation is not mentioned in the text. The conclusion could lead to either revision or rejection. A good review is characterized by not pre-empting this decision.

Now that you have all the essentials, you are ready to start writing a peer review with confidence and precision. Understanding how to write a peer review ensures that your feedback is both constructive and helpful, guiding the authors toward improving their work.

Leave a Reply

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