An editor invites you to review a manuscript. It feels like recognition, and you want to say yes. Before accepting, look carefully at the actual task: a confidential assessment that another researcher and an editor will rely on.
The handbook presents peer review as both a contribution to scholarship and a learning opportunity. Start by deciding whether this particular invitation fits your expertise, availability, and responsibilities.
Check the match
Read the information provided and identify which parts you can assess. You may know the topic well but have limited expertise in a method. Tell the editor about a relevant limitation rather than implying you can evaluate everything.
The editor can decide whether your perspective meets the need.
Check conflicts and capacity
Disclose potential conflicts through the journal's process and follow its guidance. Look at the deadline and your existing commitments. An invitation doesn't require acceptance if you can't provide a careful review in the available time.
A prompt, clear reply helps the editor find another reviewer when needed.
Follow the review instructions
Read the journal's criteria and expectations. Clarify uncertainty about confidentiality, permitted tools, or consultation before sharing manuscript material or involving anyone else. Treat unpublished work as entrusted information.
Keep the assessment focused on the submission rather than on assumptions about the authors.
Distinguish major concerns from smaller revisions
Explain the question the paper addresses, the contribution you see, and the issues that affect interpretation. Support concerns with specific reasoning. A request to 'improve the methods' needs an explanation of what is unclear or unsuitable.
Separate essential changes from suggestions that reflect personal preferences or a different study you might have conducted.
Write for a useful response
Keep the tone professional and give authors something they can address. A rigorous review can be direct without being dismissive. Check that your recommendation is consistent with the concerns you identify and the journal's process.
Make each major concern traceable to the manuscript
If a conclusion seems broader than the design supports, identify the relevant claim and explain the mismatch. If a procedure is unclear, say what information would help you assess it. That gives the editor and authors a reasoned concern rather than a verdict they must interpret.
Be careful not to ask for a completely different study when a narrower interpretation or clearer explanation would address the issue. Some limitations genuinely affect what can be concluded; others belong in an honest account of the study's scope. Explain which you think is involved.
Before submitting, read the review as a set of actions. Are the most important points visible? Have you separated them from minor wording suggestions? Is the tone directed at the work rather than the authors? Follow the journal's instructions for communicating with the editor and authors. A useful review makes the reasoning clear enough that someone can respond, even when the assessment is critical.
Before accepting your next invitation, answer three questions: can I assess the work, can I meet the deadline, and are there issues the editor needs to know? That small pause is part of doing peer review responsibly.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 89-90.
