Elsevier editors share their top reviewing tips – Part 2

“People are busy, so only a few reviewers meet the deadline,” says Professor Marijn Janssen, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Government Information Quarterly opens in new tab/window. “A good review takes time – it’s almost like writing a paper yourself. But authors expect a quick turnaround so there is some conflict there.”

But the answer is not to shortcut the review, according to Professor Cynthia Baldwin, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology opens in new tab/window: “Poor reviews are ones when they just write a few sentences saying it’s not a good paper, just to get it off their to do list. That’s not helpful for anyone involved.”

If you decide that you’re unable to meet the editor’s deadline, then decline as soon as possible so they can approach an alternative reviewer and be sure to recommend someone suitable. If you can review by the deadline, be prepared with any specific guidelines, and set aside time to read the paper properly.

Even if you consider the manuscript to be low quality, your review still has to be good quality. “It’s not enough for me to get a report with a paragraph saying it’s not good,” says Professor Urban Jermann, Editor of the Journal of Monetary Economics opens in new tab/window. “There has to be some substance – if it’s not a good paper, it’s always best to suggest how it can be made better, or what related area it could be moved into. Reviewers have already spent time reading, so it’s low-cost for them to take just a little more time and give useful recommendations.”

After reading and summarizing the research, you will be able to comment on the manuscript in general. Does the research fit with the journal’s scope? Is it within the journal’s remit? For example, if the journal has a policy focus, does the research have a policy angle? This is where some journal-specific guidance will come in handy: Journals have guidelines available online for authors, which can also be helpful for you as a reviewer. Some have even more detailed instructions, for example, the Journal of Ethnopharmacology opens in new tab/window (JEP) has a ‘Rules of 5 opens in new tab/window’ document that describes top-level considerations for research to be publishable. “It makes reviewing easier – if a paper isn’t for the journal, you can just say it’s out of scope and refer the author to the guidelines,” says JEP Editor-in-Chief, Professor Dr. Rob Verpoorte.

The next step is to look at the research itself and determine its value for the journal and the people who read the journal. Does it have enough of an impact? Is the research relevant, and does it add sufficiently to our collective knowledge? This is where your interpretation may differ to that of the authors, so it’s important to look at the validity of the results.

According to Professor Dr. Verpoorte: “As long as the experimental design and results are correct, they will be correct forever. The result always has a meaning; you can adjust the interpretation of the results as the knowledge base builds, but the results themselves don’t change. The value lies in whether the work was done properly.”

Positivity’s a plus: looking on the bright side helps authors

If you don’t think the paper is good enough to be published, your review is still valuable: don’t dismiss its importance. “There are some hostile reviewers, and some just say ‘this is a terrible paper, I’m not wasting my time reviewing it’,” says Professor Baldwin. “That’s not helpful to anyone involved. Try to be constructive - your review can be really helpful to the authors as well as to us as editors.”

While it’s important to be honest when sharing your opinions about the paper, you have to stay positive, says Professor Janssen: “Reviewers are trained to focus on the negative, but what really helps is to highlight the strengths. Your view on the paper and the research may be different from that of the authors; if you encourage the authors, it motivates them to improve their research.”