Becoming a peer reviewer is an excellent way to contribute to the NDT profession while at the same time earning points toward the renewal of your ASNT certification.
The most important purpose of a peer review is to recommend to the editor whether an article is worthy of being published. And for this, the editor requires a thorough, in-depth evaluation and specific comments that will help in deciding whether to accept a manuscript.
The comments help both the editor and the author understand what will improve the quality of the article, if it needs revision before being accepted, or what it lacks if it is to be rejected.
These seven tips will help you ensure that your reviews are helpful and fair.
1. Accept only as many peer review assignments as you can do justice to.
Your reviews should demonstrate accountability, integrity, orderliness, and empathy. Reject any peer review invitation if
- you believe you cannot devote enough time to provide detailed, specific, balanced comments and the review deadline cannot be extended;
- the manuscript covers a subject area that you are not very familiar with; or
- there are any conflicts of interest—for example, if the author is a co-worker or is related to you.
2. Ensure your review comments are based on a thorough understanding of the manuscript.
Incomplete understanding of a manuscript on a peer reviewer’s part can make the author receiving the comments question the validity of the review. To avoid situations like this, read the entire manuscript without skipping any sections, preferably in a single sitting. If you are relatively new to peer reviews, read over the manuscript and your assessment more than once. If you feel that you may not have understood the content completely because of poor language quality, mention this in your comments.
3. Prepare your comments in a systematic manner.
Begin your report by writing an overview based on your impression of the work, including whether it will contribute to existing knowledge in the field and will be of interest to the target audience. Then write comments about specific aspects, categorized into major and minor comments.
Many publications provide a template or a framework for peer reviewers to record their assessments and offer reviewer guidelines. Adhere to these.
4. Write specific and well-reasoned comments.
Just as a good researcher backs up any scientific claims with evidence and thorough logical reasoning, a good reviewer should support any comments on a manuscript with specific reasons.
For example, if you are suggesting a major revision or additional research that will involve more effort from the author, explain why you are making this suggestion and, perhaps briefly, recommend how the author could go about it.
5. Do not shy away from pointing out potential ethical problems.
If you notice any potential ethical problems—for example, plagiarism—be as clear and specific as you can. Point out the exact instances you found problematic and why. You are obliged to do so.
Many journals allow reviewers to share confidential comments meant for just the editor. In these situations, you can describe any major concerns more freely with the editor through confidential comments.
6. Share positive feedback where relevant.
Individuals critiquing any type of work may tend to focus more on what is wrong with the work and overlook what is good about it. It’s just as important to provide positive feedback where relevant.
This is not to say that you should force yourself to say nice things even if there is nothing much to commend the authors on. But to be fair to the author’s research, each aspect—whether positive or negative—should be emphasized to the extent to which it deserves attention and no more.
After all, authors would like to know what they did right, too, so that they can use that feedback in their future work.
7. Use a professional, courteous tone.
Peer review is an effort-intensive, quality-focused task, and sometimes reviewers may lose sight of the human element of this responsibility. An evaluation should be as honest and objective as possible, with only facts as the basis. However, you are also obliged to be empathetic. The person reading your input is human and will feel emotions on reading what you say.
This does not mean that you should sugarcoat negative feedback or compromise scientific integrity in the interest of sparing an author’s feelings. Be as thoroughly professional and helpful as you can be. Here are a few tips on how to do this:
- Avoid writing comments that appear to personally criticize the author or sound accusatory (“the author should have” or “the author should not have”), which can come across as rude. Instead, the criticism should be directed at the text and the ideas.
- Use neutral and not harsh words to offer criticism. For example, never use expressions such as “makes no sense,” “worthless,” or “unpublishable.” Exclamation marks accompanying negative comments indicate strong emotion and should be avoided in professional feedback.
- Not providing explanations adds to the terseness of tone. Back negative comments with reasons.
- You are likely to be working under several constraints, especially time constraints. So, manuscripts of poor quality can take more time and effort than you had anticipated and cause frustration and annoyance. In such cases, never send your comments as soon as you have written them. Take a break and review them before submitting them to the journal.
The best way to improve at peer reviewing manuscripts is to keep doing it and learn from your experiences. In addition, you can learn from the reviews you receive for your own writing, go through sample peer review reports available online, and seek peer-reviewer training.
_______
Editage is division of Cactus Communications; editage.com.
This post was shared in conjunction with Peer Review Week 2021 (20-24 September) and reposted with permission. #PeerReviewWeek21 @Editage
To Register as an ASNT Peer Reviewer
Materials Evaluation
Please go to https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/me and create an account. During that process be sure to include keywords which indicate your areas of expertise. This will enable the Associate Technical Editors to identify you as a possible reviewer for Materials Evaluation.
Research in Nondestructive Evaluation
Please go to https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/urnd and create an account. During that process be sure to include keywords which indicate your areas of expertise. This will enable the Associate Technical Editors to identify you as a possible reviewer for Research in Nondestructive Evaluation.
ASNT Handbooks
Contact Karen Balkin, NDT Handbook Editor, kbalkin@asnt.org.
All Other ASNT Books
Contact:
Cindi Leeman, Educational Materials Supervisor, cleeman@asnt.org,
Haley Cowans, Educational Materials Editor, hcowans@asnt.org.
Photo by Karolina Grabowska from Pexels.