How to Politely Say You Wont Review an Article

Page Content

Overview of the Review Report Format

The Beginning Read-Through

First Read Considerations

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

Concluding the Starting time Reading

Rejection After the Commencement Reading

Before Starting the Second Read-Through

Doing the 2nd Read-Through

The Second Read-Through: Section by Section Guidance

How to Structure Your Report

On Presentation and Fashion

Criticisms & Confidential Comments to Editors

The Recommendation

When Recommending Rejection

Additional Resources

Step past footstep guide to reviewing a manuscript

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a re-create of the paper's abstruse to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it volition prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

Overview of the Review Report Format

The structure of the review study varies between journals. Some follow an breezy structure, while others have a more formal arroyo.

"Number your comments!!!" (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Construction

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews across request for your 'assay of claim'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the periodical, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you proceeds feel, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might desire you to rate the manuscript on diverse attributes using a scorecard. Frequently you lot can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you lot agree to the piece of work, it'southward worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If at that place are formal guidelines, let them straight the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors merely.

The First Read-Through

Following the invitation to review, when you'll take received the commodity abstruse, you should already sympathize the aims, cardinal data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a annotation now that you demand to feedback on how to amend those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. Information technology will help you class an initial impression of the newspaper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation volition be to have or reject the paper.

First Read Considerations

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Endeavour to deport in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject field compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they accost the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, practise they accept a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add together to the newspaper? Exercise they aid agreement or are they superfluous?

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

While you should read the whole paper, making the right pick of what to read first can salvage time past flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, "Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome."

Examples of perchance major flaws include:

• Drawing a determination that is contradicted past the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a procedure that is known to accept a stiff influence on the expanse under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if non, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient utilize of control experiments
• The precision of procedure information
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the apply of a detailed methodology and the data assay being washed systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative inquiry extends across the writer'southward opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Data

If methodology is less of an consequence, it'south often a practiced idea to await at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science enquiry, information technology's all nearly the information gathered. If there are disquisitional flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will demand to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are non self-consequent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds piddling, if anything, to current agreement - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If yous find a major problem, annotation your reasoning and clear supporting testify (including citations).

Concluding the First Reading

Subsequently the initial read and using your notes, including those of whatsoever major flaws you found, draft the first 2 paragraphs of your review - the offset summarizing the enquiry question addressed and the 2nd the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still assistance you etch your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should land the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the newspaper. It should:

• Aid the editor properly contextualize the research and add together weight to your judgement
• Testify the writer what key messages are conveyed to the reader, and so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to exercise
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the writer gets a sense of what they've washed well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper'due south premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Practice the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these 2 paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (encounter the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Rejection Subsequently the Offset Reading

Fifty-fifty if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure yous read the whole paper. This is very important considering yous may discover some actually positive aspects that tin exist communicated to the author. This could assist them with hereafter submissions.

A full read-through will also brand sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole newspaper before deciding to pass up. If yous still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Earlier Starting the Second Read-Through

Once the paper has passed your get-go read and you've decided the commodity is publishable in principle, ane purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to assistance fix the manuscript for publication. Of grade, you may still decide to reject it post-obit a second reading.

The benchmark for credence is whether the manuscript makes a useful contribution to the knowledge base or understanding of the subject matter. It need non be fully complete inquiry - it may exist an interim paper. After all research is an incomplete, on-going projection by its nature. The detailed read-through should take no more than an hour for the moderately experienced reviewer.

"Offer articulate suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Periodical of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make split notes
• Attempt to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note straight onto the manuscript, still effort grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and besides aids those reading your review
• Keep images, graphs and data tables in articulate view - either print them off or have them in view on a 2nd calculator monitor or window
  

At present that you have completed your preparations, you're set up to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

Doing the Second Read-Through

As y'all're reading through the manuscript for a second time, y'all'll need to keep in mind the argument'southward structure, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument's construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the pregnant is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Whatsoever invalid arguments

You lot may too wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Practice the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an advisable length?
• Are the key messages curt, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your part is to make certain that the text's pregnant is articulate.

Editors say, "If a manuscript has many English language and editing problems, please do not effort and prepare it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and information technology should exist up to the authors to have the manuscript edited."

If the commodity is difficult to understand, yous should take rejected it already. However, if the linguistic communication is poor but yous understand the core message, see if yous can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there sure aspects that could exist communicated ameliorate, such every bit parts of the give-and-take?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same periodical later language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary part is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a loftier standard earlier publication. Nevertheless, if you lot spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of significant, then it's important to highlight these. Await to propose such amendments - information technology'south rare for a manuscript to laissez passer review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals constitute that 79% of recommendations past reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

The Second Read-Through: Department by Section Guidance

one. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes contempo research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in electric current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims past demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic expanse
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can simply be established in the low-cal of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to debate that there is a conflict in current understanding past referencing articles that are ten years onetime.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is simply valid if researchers can point to recent developments in information gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can but do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older enquiry is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then information technology is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the written report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes?"

Aims

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the enquiry aims. By this point you should already have a skillful impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, and so the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Inquiry

This makes sufficient use of:

• Command experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments
• Sampling

These are used to brand sure observed trends are not due to run a risk and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and effect in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will non exist sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the newspaper should exist recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give plenty particular and so that other researchers are able to carry out the same inquiry. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in particular so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are non detailed plenty, information technology's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Inquiry

This has enough data points to make sure the information are reliable. If in that location are insufficient data, information technology might be appropriate to recommend revision. You lot should besides consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the command experiments.

All-time Practice

During these checks you should proceed in heed all-time do:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.thou. the CONSORT Argument for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and prophylactic of all participants in the written report was non compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the inquiry fails to attain relevant best practise standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, y'all don't then need to read whatsoever further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Sure patterns of skillful reporting need to be followed by the writer:

• They should start by describing in elementary terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such every bit significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can just be done by referencing published enquiry
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the information collected

Discussion should always, at some indicate, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and hash out the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or accept the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than than a few paragraphs and may exist presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate department. The conclusions should reverberate upon the aims - whether they were achieved or non - and, only like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to enquire for them to be re-written.

5. Data Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If yous detect yourself looking at a piece of data from which y'all cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical note or image quality.

Where information is articulate, y'all should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case at that place is an error in data gathering
• The trends you lot tin can see support the newspaper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For instance, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described past the author?

You should likewise check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate merely only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. past highlighting sure parts of an image). Where you feel that an paradigm has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential annotate to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will demand to check referencing for accuracy, capability and balance.

Accuracy

Where a cited article is central to the author's statement, y'all should cheque the accuracy and format of the reference - and conduct in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, information technology's the editor'due south role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

Adequacy

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should exist discussed?
• If a manuscript merely uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should exist improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Balance

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Off-white to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on cocky-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the piece of work nether assessment

Yous should be able to evaluate whether the commodity meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking upwards every reference.

vii. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep agreement of the paper's content - and you may take some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you observe - or already knew of - a very like newspaper, this may be because the author overlooked information technology in their own literature search. Or it may be because information technology is very recent or published in a periodical slightly outside their usual field.

Yous may feel yous tin suggest the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so equally to better differentiate it from similar inquiry. If so, you may ask the author to hash out their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in lite of the like commodity. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you accept no choice but to recommend rejection.

"Information technology's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, just cannot remember or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and enquire for guidance.

Most editors take access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, just when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it tin be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ideals.

eight. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, y'all will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and cardinal words are optimized for search purposes. In social club to exist effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear championship and abstruse will improve the newspaper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and and so decides to navigate to the chief article. The championship should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major event on the impact of a paper, since information technology helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract tin so lose the reader's involvement and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

Then ask yourself, while the abstract may accept seemed adequate during before checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting information?

Editors say, "Does the Abstruse highlight the important findings of the study?"

How to Construction Your Written report

If there is a formal written report format, call up to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal study format you could structure your study in 3 sections: summary, major issues, minor bug.

Summary

• Requite positive feedback showtime. Authors are more than probable to read your review if yous practice so. But don't overdo information technology if yous volition be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the newspaper is most and what the findings are
• Attempt to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and electric current knowledge
• Bespeak the significance of the work and if information technology is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Betoken the work'southward strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and notation whatever special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Bug

• Are at that place whatsoever major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their affect is on the paper
• Has like work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge electric current thinking? Is the bear witness they present stiff enough to testify their instance? Take they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate conspicuously what they are
• Are in that location any major presentational bug? Are figures & tables, linguistic communication and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately appraise the work?
• Are at that place any ethical issues? If you are unsure information technology may exist amend to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, express, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit of measurement errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

On Presentation and Way

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. And so be polite, honest and clear. You lot should also try to be objective and effective, not subjective and subversive.

Y'all should likewise:

• Write clearly and so you can exist understood by people whose offset language is non English
• Avoid circuitous or unusual words, peculiarly ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to just comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you lot should bespeak clearly which these are
• Treat the author'southward work the way you would like your own to be treated

Criticisms & Confidential Comments to Editors

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Frequently this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the adjacent section - merely otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such equally suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

Nevertheless, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't run across this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. And so in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

The Recommendation

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In item, bear in heed that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, equally this can cause editors difficulty later - meet Section eleven for more advice about working with editors.

You lot will commonly be asked to point your recommendation (e.yard. take, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice listing and then to enter your comments into a split up text box.

Recommending Credence

If you lot're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could exist improved. Don't just requite a short, brief remark such as 'great, take'. Encounter Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. Y'all may too cull to country whether yous opt in or out of the postal service-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you lot feel demand to be made. The author can then respond to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to assist? "Be articulate in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisionorthward." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and come across the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

When Recommending Rejection

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you lot should not spend whatsoever time polishing the review you've drafted or requite detailed communication on presentation.

Editors say, "If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does non assist the editor in making a decision."

In your recommendations for the author, you lot should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the inquiry
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important role of your chore as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while existence polite and encouraging to the writer - the latter may not empathise why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to requite effective criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not exist published.

"When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a newspaper when the comments brand it sound similar a slap-up paper." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Boosted Resources

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

pellparin1936.blogspot.com

Source: https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html

Share this post