Peer reviews play a crucial role in ensuring the quality and integrity of academic and professional research. Whether you are an experienced reviewer or a first-timer, writing a thorough, well-structured review can contribute significantly to improving the work you are reviewing.

This guide takes you step-by-step through the process of writing an effective peer review and helps you make your feedback constructive, detailed, and actionable.

Importance of peer review

Peer reviews are a cornerstone of scholarly work. They serve as a form of quality control, helping to make sure that published research is credible, rigorous, and valuable. When done properly, peer reviews help authors refine their work with insights that can improve depth, clarity and accuracy.

An effective review does not merely point out shortcomings, but also highlights strengths and makes constructive suggestions for improvement. This balance is important and helps the academic or professional field remain robust and evolve.

1. Understand the peer review guidelines

Before you begin the review process, you should carefully consider any instructions or guidelines provided by the organisation or editor. These guidelines often list the key aspects of the work you should focus on, the format, and the questions you should answer.

Pay attention to provided instructions

Some peer reviews are very structured and require you to address specific sections of the work, such as argument structure or methodology, or to respond to specific questions. By following these guidelines, you can meet the editor’s expectations and provide the kind of feedback they consider valuable.

Assessing the scope and requirements

It is also important that you understand the scope of your review. Should you review the entire work or just focus on certain aspects such as evidence or methodology? If you know what you need to focus on, you can avoid being distracted by less important details.

Deadline management

Peer reviews are time-sensitive. Make sure that you manage your time well so that you can complete your review by the deadline. This will allow the author to make timely revisions and meet the publication schedule.

2. Reading the paper thoroughly

A good review begins with careful reading. So approach the work with both an analytical and a general perspective. Try to understand not only the details of the argument, but also the overall flow and structure of the work. 

First read-through (overview)

Start by reading the paper without taking notes. The first reading will give you a sense of the overall message, structure, and tone of the work. It will help you understand the big picture before you get into the details.

Multiple readings

• Detailed second reading: After the first read-through, go back to the paper and make detailed notes on the overall structure, strengths, weaknesses, and unclear arguments.

• Final reading for general impression: During your final pass, you should focus on the overall flow and readability of the work. How well are the individual sections connected and does the paper as a whole leave a strong impression? 

Key points to focus on

Pay attention to the following when reviewing:

• The clarity of the thesis statement and argument
• The rigor and relevance of the evidence presented
• The flow of the work from one section to the next
• The paper’s contribution to the field of study

See also: Why InstaText is your best bet for getting published

3. Structure of a good peer review

A well-organised review can convey your feedback clearly. The structure of your review should reflect the organisation of the paper while incorporating your own detailed insights. 

Introduction to the review

Begin your review by summarising the most important points of the work. This includes the topic, objectives, and key findings. Your summary should be concise and emphasise the essential elements of the work without getting bogged down in excessive detail.

General impressions

Provide a general evaluation of the work. Does it fulfill the stated objectives? How relevant is it to the subject area? Does it add value to the current literature? Your general impression should be balanced and fair.

Tone

Your tone throughout the review should be constructive, respectful, and professional. Even if you give critical feedback, you should adopt an encouraging tone. Peer reviews are not about criticising the author personally, but about helping them improve their work.

Confidential comments to the editor

If you have not received any specific instructions, it is standard practice to divide your review into two parts:

• Comments for the editor only
• Comments shared with both the editor and the authors

Use the confidential section to express concerns that should not be shared with the author. These include suspected ethical issues, plagiarism, or doubts about the suitability of the work for the journal. Keep this section concise, focused, and professional. All other constructive feedback and suggestions should be included in the section meant for both the author and editor.

4. Critique the content

A key element of your review is critiquing the content of the work. Here you can find out how to evaluate some of the most important aspects:

Clarity of purpose and thesis

One of the first things you need to assess is whether the purpose of the work is clear. Has the author clearly defined their objective or research question? The thesis statement should be specific and convincing and form the basis for the argument that follows.

Thesis and argument structure

Does the argument of the paper follow a logical progression? The thesis should be supported throughout the paper, with each section contributing to the overall narrative. Check that the argument is coherent and well-organised.

Methodology and approach

A well-conducted study is based on sound methodology. Assess whether the methods used are appropriate for the research question. Are they justified and detailed? Assess whether the study is reproducible and rigorous.

Example of methodological critique: “The method section lacks detail in explaining the sample size calculation, which raises concerns about the study’s validity and generalisability.”

Evidence and analysis

Does the work contain relevant, strong evidence? Can you identify gaps or areas where additional references or data could strengthen the argument? A critical examination of the existing literature is also important. Does the work relate meaningfully to the research that has come before it? 

5. Evaluate writing and structure

The clarity of the writing and the structure of the paper play an important role in how effectively the arguments are conveyed.

Organisation of the paper

Is the work logically structured, from the introduction to the conclusion? Each section should have a clear purpose and the paper should flow smoothly from one section to the next. Check that headings and subheadings are used appropriately to guide the reader.

Example of structural critique: “The transition between the literature review and the methodology section is abrupt, and a summary paragraph might improve the flow.”

Readability and clarity of writing

Check the text for clarity. Are there any overly complex sentences or jargon that could be simplified? The text should be clear and understandable without sacrificing depth. Grammar isn’t the main focus of a peer review, but should be pointed out if it hinders readability or professionalism.

Example of writing critique: “Some paragraphs are overly complex, making it hard for readers to follow the argument. Consider breaking them down into shorter, more concise statements.”

6. Assess contributions to the field

The value of an academic paper lies in its contribution to the field. Does the work offer new insights or is it merely a repetition of existing knowledge? Does the work advance the current state of research or practice?

Example of contribution critique: “While the study addresses an important issue, its findings do not offer a new perspective or significantly advance the existing debate.”

See also: How InstaText increases conference acceptance rates

7. Provide suggestions for improvement

Constructive feedback is crucial, so be as specific as possible when pointing out weaknesses and making suggestions for improvement. Avoid vague feedback such as “The paper needs work.” Instead, provide clear, actionable suggestions.  

Example of Constructive Feedback: “The paper could benefit from a deeper analysis of the statistical significance of the data, which would strengthen the argument.”

8. Summary and conclusion of the review

Conclude the review with a summary of the most important points you have addressed. This should include a brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and any suggestions for improvement.

Final assessment

Your final recommendation should reflect the quality of the work and guide the editor’s decision-making process. Note that this is only a recommendation and that the final decision lies with the editor:

• Accept: If the work is solid and needs minimal revisions.
• Minor revisions: If the paper is generally good but requires some clarifications or adjustments.
• Major revisions: If the paper has significant issues that require extensive revisions.
• Reject: If the paper is not suitable for publication in its present form.

Example of final assessment: “While the research is timely and relevant, the manuscript requires major revisions in both structure and content to meet publication standards.”

9. Tone and etiquette in peer review

It is important to maintain professionalism throughout the review. Acknowledge the author’s efforts and provide your feedback in a way that is helpful and respectful. Always keep the focus of the feedback on the work, not the person. 

Balance positives and negatives

Include both positive and negative comments in your review to make it balanced. Emphasise the strengths of the work and the areas for improvement.

Confidentiality

Peer reviews are confidential. Do not share details of the paper with others before it is officially published.

See also: Can you use generative AI in peer review process? 

10. Final tips for writing an effective peer review

Be honest, but tactful

It is important to offer honest feedback. However, phrase it constructively. Focus on how the work can be improved, not just on its shortcomings. 

Stay focused on the content

Avoid commenting on personal preferences regarding format or style unless they affect clarity or readability. The review should focus on the content of the paper—its structure, its arguments, and its contribution to the field. Mention style or formatting issues only if they have a significant impact on the communication of the ideas.

Take your time

A rushed review can lead to details being overlooked and feedback being less thoughtful. Give yourself enough time to read the paper carefully, understand its points, and make constructive, well thought-out suggestions that will help the author improve their work.

Meet confidentiality criteria with InstaText 

One question you may be asking yourself is: Can generative AI tools such as ChatGPT be used in the peer review process? Many publishers such as Elsevier and Springer require reviewers not to use this technology in the peer review process, mainly due to concerns about confidentiality, bias, and accuracy of information. This applies to the process of reviewing the paper and writing the review report.

But are there other technologies that reviewers can use to improve the language and readability of texts while avoiding the confidentiality, hallucination, and bias concerns associated with generative AI? The answer is: tools that utilise advanced language technologies, but not generative AI. 

These tools, such as editing assistants, grammar checkers, and proofreaders, focus on analysing and improving existing texts rather than generating new content. 

InstaText is one such tool—it does not create new content, but improves readability, clarity, and grammar. With an interactive editing style, users have full control over the editing process, including the ability to accept or reject suggestions. InstaText also never saves texts to protect the privacy of users.

If you’re already a user, you can read our blog posts for helpful insights. If you’re not a user yet, you can try InstaText for free and experience it for yourself.

“InstaText is a great tool! I use it to improve English texts such as articles, projects and abstracts for conferences. The tool provides very useful suggestions that help me to translate the text to a professional level so that no additional review by “native speakers” is required. The time and money savings are obvious. I highly recommend it!”

— Dr. Janez Konc, Senior Researcher

“I find InstaText very helpful. It makes me much faster in writing papers. I’m a perfectionist and usually spend (way too) much time finding the right words and making sure that sentences are easily readable even if the concepts are arbitrarily complicated. InstaText makes my life easier. I recommend it to any PhD student or researcher, whether a native English speaker or not.”

— Giulia Guidi, PhD Student, University of California, Berkeley

“InstaText was very helpful for me and my students. With its help we have published articles in several scientific journals with high impact factors.”

— Dr. Urška Vrabič Brodnjak, University Professor