first-peer-review

Writing Your First Peer Review: A Practical Approach

Most researchers receive their first invitation to review a manuscript with a mixture of pride and anxiety. Peer review is a core scholarly responsibility, yet few people are ever taught how to do it. Early-career reviewers often worry that they will miss something important, be too harsh, be too lenient or simply not know what editors expect. This guide offers a practical approach to reviewing a manuscript: deciding whether to accept the invitation, reading the paper systematically, structuring your report, writing comments that authors can act on, and using a source-linked assistant such as Yila to check the claims a manuscript makes about prior work against the cited sources.

Decide whether to accept

Before agreeing to review, read the abstract and ask three questions. Do you have the expertise to evaluate the core of the paper? You do not need to be an expert in every method used, but you should be able to judge the main contribution. Do you have the time to do a careful review by the deadline? A rushed review helps nobody. Do you have any conflict of interest, such as a close collaboration with the authors or a competing project? If so, decline or disclose it to the editor.

If you can evaluate only part of the paper, say so. Editors appreciate reviewers who are explicit about the limits of their expertise, and they can invite another reviewer to cover the rest.

Read the journal's guidance

Journals differ in what they ask of reviewers. Some want a recommendation of accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. Some ask specific questions about novelty, rigour or ethics. Some have word limits or templates for reports. Some operate open review, where your report and perhaps your name will be published. Read the reviewer guidelines before starting so that your report meets the editor's needs.

Also check the journal's scope and the article type. A brief communication is held to different expectations than a full research article, and a methods paper is evaluated differently from an empirical study.

First pass: understand the contribution

Read the manuscript once from start to finish without making detailed notes. Your goal is to understand what the authors claim to have done and why it matters. At the end of this pass, try to write a two or three sentence summary of the paper in your own words. If you cannot, that is itself useful feedback: the paper may not communicate its contribution clearly.

Note your initial impression, but do not let it settle into a verdict. First impressions are often revised once the details are examined.

Second pass: examine the details

On the second reading, work through the paper section by section. In the introduction, check whether the research question is clear and well motivated, and whether the authors position their work fairly against prior studies. In the methods, check whether the design suits the question, whether the procedures are described in enough detail to be replicated and whether the analyses are appropriate. In the results, check whether the findings are reported completely and consistently across text, tables and figures. In the discussion, check whether the conclusions follow from the results and whether limitations are acknowledged honestly.

Keep notes with page and line references. These make your report easier to write and easier for authors to address.

Check the literature claims

Manuscripts often make claims about what previous studies found or did not find. These claims can be inaccurate, sometimes because the authors misread a paper and sometimes because the field has moved on. As a reviewer, you are not expected to verify every citation, but checking the key ones is valuable, especially those used to justify the study's novelty.

This is where Yila helps. If a manuscript states that a prior study used only cross-sectional data, you can ask Yila about that study's design and receive an answer that cites the relevant passage, letting you confirm or correct the claim quickly. You remain responsible for the judgement, but you spend minutes rather than hours on verification. Do not upload the confidential manuscript itself to any external tool unless the journal's policy explicitly permits it; focus on checking published sources the manuscript cites.

Separate major and minor issues

A useful report distinguishes issues that affect the validity or importance of the conclusions from issues that affect presentation. Major issues might include a design flaw that undermines causal claims, an analysis that does not account for clustering, missing data that could bias results or conclusions that go beyond the evidence. Minor issues might include unclear figures, inconsistent terminology, missing details in the methods or typographical errors.

Group your comments accordingly. Editors read the major issues first to decide on a recommendation, and authors use the structure to prioritise their revisions.

Write comments that authors can act on

The most helpful comments are specific, explain why something matters and, where possible, suggest a way forward. Compare "The analysis is inadequate" with "The analysis treats repeated measurements from the same participants as independent observations, which is likely to underestimate standard errors. A mixed-effects model with participant as a random effect would address this." The second comment tells the authors exactly what the problem is, why it matters and how to fix it.

When you are unsure, phrase comments as questions: "Could the authors clarify whether participants who withdrew were included in the analysis?" This invites clarification without assuming an error.

Mind your tone

Peer review is anonymous in many journals, but your comments will be read by real people, often early-career researchers. Write as you would if you were speaking to the authors in person. Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses; a paper that is not yet ready for publication may still contain valuable ideas. Avoid sarcasm, personal remarks and sweeping dismissals. Firm criticism delivered respectfully is far more likely to be taken seriously.

Structure the report

A clear report typically includes a brief summary of the paper and its main claims, an overall assessment of strengths and weaknesses, a numbered list of major issues, a numbered list of minor issues and, if requested, confidential comments to the editor. The summary shows the editor and authors that you understood the paper. The overall assessment explains your recommendation. The numbered issues give the authors a checklist for revision.

Keep your recommendation consistent with your comments. A report listing several fundamental flaws should not recommend minor revision, and a report with only small suggestions should not recommend rejection.

Review revisions carefully

If the paper returns after revision, read the authors' response letter alongside the revised manuscript. Check that each of your comments has been addressed, either by a change in the manuscript or by a reasoned explanation of why a change was not made. Be open to persuasion; authors sometimes have good reasons for disagreeing. Avoid introducing entirely new concerns at this stage unless the revisions themselves have raised them.

Learn from each review

After the editor's decision, many journals share the other reviewers' reports. Read them. They show what other experts noticed, what you missed and how others phrase criticism. Over time, this feedback is one of the best ways to improve as a reviewer.

Peer review rewards care more than brilliance. Read systematically, check the claims that matter, separate major from minor issues, write specific and respectful comments, and your reviews will help authors improve their work and editors make sound decisions.