Strategies for Effective Peer Review Communication in Science

On kindness in peer review: 9 better ways to say “This paper needs work" Every so often, I come across a reviewer comment that calls a contribution trivial or says it “does not rise to the level expected” at a journal. When I see that language, I wince. Even if the critique has merit, it often overshadows otherwise valuable points in the review. Why? Because it makes the authors feel like the entire review team—not just one reviewer—didn’t see any merit in their work. So, what can we do instead? To help authors actually use your feedback? Soften your tone—not your standards. Use language that clearly signals concern about the contribution without shutting down the possibility for improvement. Rather than making the author angry, use language that engages the author with your comments and encourages them to improve their work. Here are nine thoughtful phrases I’ve seen good reviewers use this past year, that encourage engagement. They’re especially useful in peer review, mentorship, or conference feedback: 1. "The core argument feels underdeveloped, and I had trouble fully engaging with it." This gently signals the paper didn’t land, while pointing to a fixable issue. 2. "I struggled to connect with the contribution—perhaps more framing or positioning could clarify its relevance." Invites the author to sharpen the positioning of their work. 3. "The paper raises important questions, but the current structure makes it difficult to appreciate its full impact." Encourages authors to revise the structure for better clarity. 4. "I found myself wanting more clarity on how this piece fits into the broader conversation." Suggests adding context. Consider: “It doesn’t resonate with me because the context is missing.” 5. "This may reflect my own disciplinary perspective, but I had difficulty connecting with the theoretical framing." Acknowledges your own lens and invites the author to strengthen their framing for a wider audience. 6. "The writing is thoughtful, but I had trouble seeing how the pieces come together to form a cohesive narrative." Encourages a shift from listing elements to telling a coherent story. 7. "The manuscript feels preliminary—there’s potential here, but it’s not fully realized yet." Flags underdevelopment without sounding dismissive or harsh. 8. "The contribution may benefit from more grounding in empirical or theoretical detail to fully resonate with readers." Only use this if you can specify what detail is needed. 9. "This version didn’t quite land for me, but I believe with revision and sharper focus, it could really shine." Provides an honest, hopeful invitation to revise. Never forget. Reviewing is about stewardship. It’s about helping authors make their work stronger—even when it’s not there yet. So rather than tearing down papers, offer a well-phrased critique, that encourages authors to keep working. #PeerReview #AcademicWriting #AcademicJourney #AcademicCulture

While I was trying to search for possible reviewers for a manuscript I am currently handling, I decided to make this screenshot. This reminds me of how essential it is to maintain constructive practices when serving as a reviewer (every review is an opportunity to contribute to the growth of our fields). Here are some short tips that I hope might help others to do their “B.E.S.T”: B - Be Constructive: Focus on providing clear, actionable feedback to help authors improve their work. Avoid harsh or dismissive language. Be realistic and empathetic. E - Ethical Standards: Uphold integrity by avoiding conflicts of interest (e.g., if a manuscript falls outside your expertise, it's better to recommend someone more suitable than to provide a subpar review; avoid suggesting authors cite specific work(s) unless it is genuinely relevant, etc.). S - Stick to Timelines: Timely reviews benefit everyone. If you cannot meet a deadline, communicate it early (especially during travel and holiday seasons, etc.). T - Thorough Evaluation: Carefully assess all aspects of the manuscript—structure, methodology, relevance, and clarity—without rushing. Highlight the strengths of the manuscript along with areas for improvement. Focus on the “content”, not the person(s)/institution(s). There are plenty of other best practices and sources that can help: 1. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers [https://lnkd.in/etSSVrZT] 2. Notable publishers have similar guidelines [https://lnkd.in/ez5vy_tx, https://lnkd.in/e6FFKM-A, https://lnkd.in/eR9anKQK]

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. Some reviewers offer gentle, yet unhelpful feedback. Others may be harsh but give insightful comment. Striking the right balance is key. Let me share my approach on being the 'just right' peer reviewer The are 2 parts Part 1: What to pay attention to (per section) Part 2: Scripts on how to critique politely ----------- Part 1: 📝1️⃣ Abstract: • Is it a short, clear summary of the aims, key methods, important findings, and conclusions? • Can it stand alone? • Does it contain unnecessary information? 🚪2️⃣ Introduction: Study Premise: Is it talking about something new on something old? • Does it summarize the current state of the topic? • Does it address the limitations of current state in this field? • Does it explain why this study was necessary? • Are the aims clear? 🧩3️⃣ Methods: • Study design: right to answer the question? • Population: unbiased? • Data source and collection: clearly defined? • Outcome: accurate, clinically meaningful? • Variables: well justified? • Statistical analysis: right method, sufficient power? • Study robustness: sensitivity analysis, data management. • Ethical concerns addressed? 🎯4️⃣ Results: • Are results presented clearly, accurately, and in order? • Easy to understand? • Tables make sense? • Measures of uncertainty (standard errors/P values) included? 9/16: 📈6️⃣ Figures: • Easy to understand? • Figure legends make sense? • Titles, axis clear? 🌐7️⃣ Discussion: The interpretation. • Did they compare the findings with current literature? • Is there a research argument? (claim + evidence) • Limitations/strengths addressed? • Future direction? 📚8️⃣ References: • Key references missing? • Do the authors cite secondary sources (narrative review papers) instead of the original paper? ------------ Part 2: 🗣️ How do you give your critique politely? Use these scripts. Interesting/useful research question, BUT weak method: - The study premise is strong, but the approach is underdeveloped." Robust research method, BUT the research question is not interesting/useful: -"The research method is robust and well thought out, but the study premise is weak." Bad writing: -"While the study/ research appears to be strong, the writing is difficult to follow. I recommend the authors work with a copyeditor to improve the flow/clarity and readability of the text" Results section do not make sense: -"The data reported in {page x/table y} should be expanded and clarified." Wrong interpretation/ wrong conclusion: -"The authors stated that {***}, but the data does not fully support this conclusion. We can only conclude that {***}. Poor Discussion section -"The authors {did not/fails to} address how their findings relate to the literature in this field." Copy this post into a word document and save it as a template. Use this every time you have to review a paper. If you are the receiver of peer review - you can also use this to decode what the reviewer is saying.😉

✍🏽 Are you an early career researcher serving as a journal peer reviewer for the first time? Or planning to soon? Here are a few of the questions I think about in each section as I am peer-reviewing journal manuscripts: 1️⃣ Abstract • Is it clear what was studied and why? • Are the main methods and results clear? • Are the conclusions supported by the study results? • Does it contribute meaningfully to the scientific literature? 2️⃣ Intro • Is it reasonable (e.g., evidence-based, logical)? • Any major bodies of evidence/literature missing? 3️⃣ Methods • Are methods technically sound and justified? • Are methods sufficiently detailed for someone to reproduce? • Are methods reasonable for the study objective or hypothesis? 4️⃣ Results • Are results appropriate? • Any major results missing? 5️⃣ Discussion • Is the discussion balanced/unbiased? • Any major topics or literature missing? • Are study limitations sufficiently discussed? • Are results discussed in the context of prior literature? • Are interpretations reasonable and supported by the results? 6️⃣ Conclusion • Are conclusions supported by results? • Are conclusions over-generalized or over-stated? ❌ For many early career researchers, you are used to getting red-ink-soaked manuscript pages back from your advisor. Or maybe you've been put thru the ringer before by Reviewer 2—we all have! So, it may seem natural to provide similar levels of edits during peer-review. Don't. RESIST THIS URGE! ☝🏽 Remember: you are not a co-author on the paper, so it's not the same level of revisions you would do internally on our own paper and when your own name is on the document. 📈 I largely look at scientific manuscripts as progress reports. As a research community, we gradually and collectively build up the evidence and understanding in our fields. ⚡️ To close, here are 3 more bonus tips to keep in mind while you review: 🧘🏽 Try not to be too nitpicky about individual sentences or wording. The goal of peer review isn't to correct or improve every minor little thing. And no paper can comprehensively cover every tangential topic and reference. Nor is it going to be written in your preferred style or be perfectly clear (that's ok and normal). 👍🏽 If you suggest major changes or provide major critiques, then explain why (including references if helpful) and, when possible, suggest constructive ways for authors to address your feedback. 👏🏽 Reviewing manuscripts isn't just about critiquing the negatives! It's ok (and appreciated by authors!) when you point out positive things: great figures or tables, clear writing, clever study designs, well-explained interpretations, etc. 🎯 TL/DR: Focus on evaluating whether the research is technically sound and the manuscript is sufficiently rigorous (not to be confused with comprehensive or perfect). You can hold research to a high standard while being constructive and reasonable. Don't become Reviewer 2 or confuse yourself with being a co-author.