How To Write Reviewer Comments To Author

Writing constructive and insightful reviewer comments is a critical skill for any peer reviewer. It's about more than just pointing out flaws; it's about providing authors with a clear roadmap to improve their work, ultimately contributing to the advancement of knowledge. The goal is to offer balanced feedback, acknowledging the strengths of the manuscript while offering specific and actionable suggestions for improvement. This guide delves into the art of writing effective reviewer comments, focusing on clarity, objectivity, and a constructive tone.

Understanding the Role of the Reviewer

Before diving into the specifics of writing comments, it’s crucial to understand the role of a peer reviewer. As a reviewer, you act as a gatekeeper, ensuring that published research meets the highest standards of quality, rigor, and ethical conduct. Your feedback helps authors strengthen their arguments, refine their methodology, and present their findings in the most compelling and accurate way possible. It is important to remember that the authors have invested significant time and effort into their work, and your role is to help them improve it, not to tear it down.

Key Principles of Effective Reviewer Comments

Several key principles underpin effective reviewer comments:

• Objectivity: Focus on the research itself, not the author. Avoid personal opinions or biases that could cloud your judgment. Base your critique on established scientific principles, methodologies, and the specific guidelines of the journal.
• Constructiveness: Frame your comments in a way that encourages improvement. Instead of simply stating what's wrong, explain why it's wrong and suggest concrete steps the author can take to address the issue. Use phrases like, "Consider exploring...", "It would be helpful to...", or "This section could be strengthened by...".
• Specificity: Avoid vague or general statements. Instead of saying "This section is unclear," specify which sentences or paragraphs are confusing and explain why. Provide examples to illustrate your points.
• Clarity: Use clear and concise language. Avoid jargon or technical terms that the author might not be familiar with. Ensure your comments are easy to understand and unambiguous.
• Thoroughness: Cover all aspects of the manuscript, including the introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Check for errors in grammar, spelling, and formatting.
• Professionalism: Maintain a respectful and courteous tone throughout your review. Remember that the authors are your colleagues, and your goal is to help them improve their work. Avoid using harsh or judgmental language.
• Balance: Acknowledge the strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses. Highlight what the authors have done well before pointing out areas for improvement. This helps to create a more positive and encouraging tone.

Structuring Your Reviewer Comments

A well-structured review makes it easier for the editor and the author to understand your feedback. Here’s a suggested structure:

1. Summary of the Manuscript: Begin with a brief overview of the paper's purpose, methodology, and main findings. This demonstrates that you have understood the research and provides context for your comments.
2. Overall Assessment: Provide an overall assessment of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. State whether you recommend acceptance, rejection, or revision. If you recommend revision, indicate the extent of the revisions required (e.g., minor revisions, major revisions).
3. Major Comments: These are the most important issues that need to be addressed. They typically relate to the study's design, methodology, analysis, or interpretation. Address these points first, as they will have the greatest impact on the manuscript.
4. Minor Comments: These are less critical issues that can be easily addressed. They may relate to grammar, spelling, formatting, or minor clarifications.
5. Specific Comments: These are detailed comments on specific sections, paragraphs, or sentences of the manuscript. Provide specific suggestions for improvement.
6. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional): This section is for any confidential comments that you wish to share with the editor but not with the author. This might include concerns about ethical issues, plagiarism, or potential conflicts of interest.

Detailed Breakdown of Each Section

Let's delve deeper into each section of the review process and explore how to craft effective comments.

1. Summary of the Manuscript

The summary should be concise (2-3 sentences) and accurately reflect the main points of the manuscript. It demonstrates that you've understood the research question, methodology, and findings.

Example:

"This manuscript investigates the impact of social media on adolescent mental health using a survey-based approach. The authors found a correlation between increased social media use and higher rates of anxiety and depression."

2. Overall Assessment

This section provides your overall recommendation regarding the manuscript. Be clear and concise in your assessment.

Examples:

• "Overall, this is a well-written and insightful study that makes a valuable contribution to the literature. I recommend acceptance with minor revisions."
• "While the study addresses an important topic, there are several significant methodological flaws that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. I recommend major revisions."
• "Unfortunately, the manuscript suffers from several critical shortcomings, including a flawed study design and inadequate data analysis. I recommend rejection."

3. Major Comments

These are the most important issues that need to be addressed. They often relate to:

• Research Question: Is the research question clearly defined and relevant? Is it novel and significant?
• Methodology: Is the study design appropriate for addressing the research question? Are the methods clearly described and justified? Are the sample size and statistical power adequate? Are there any potential sources of bias?
• Results: Are the results presented clearly and accurately? Are the statistical analyses appropriate? Are the findings supported by the data?
• Discussion: Are the findings interpreted correctly? Are the limitations of the study acknowledged? Are the implications of the findings discussed in a meaningful way?
• Literature Review: Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date? Does it provide a sufficient context for the study?

Examples of Major Comments:

• "The research question is not clearly defined. The authors need to clearly state the specific hypothesis they are testing."
• "The sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions. The authors need to increase the sample size or justify the current sample size with a power analysis."
• "The statistical analyses are not appropriate for the type of data collected. The authors should consult with a statistician to determine the appropriate statistical methods."
• "The discussion section overstates the findings. The authors need to acknowledge the limitations of the study and avoid making unsubstantiated claims."
• "The literature review is incomplete. The authors need to include recent studies on this topic to provide a more comprehensive context for their research."

How to Phrase Major Comments:

• "The study would benefit from a clearer articulation of the research question. Specifically, consider narrowing the scope to focus on [specific aspect] rather than [broader aspect]."
• "The methodology section lacks sufficient detail regarding the [specific procedure]. Providing more information on this aspect would strengthen the manuscript."
• "The interpretation of the results appears to be overly optimistic. A more cautious approach, acknowledging the limitations of the study, would be more appropriate."

4. Minor Comments

These are less critical issues that can be easily addressed. They may relate to:

• Grammar and Spelling: Check for errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
• Formatting: Ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal's formatting guidelines.
• Clarity: Identify any sentences or paragraphs that are unclear or confusing.
• Consistency: Check for consistency in terminology, abbreviations, and formatting.
• References: Verify that all references are accurate and complete.

Examples of Minor Comments:

• "There is a typo on page 5, line 12. The word 'effect' should be 'affect'."
• "The manuscript does not adhere to the journal's formatting guidelines for citations. Please ensure that all citations are formatted correctly."
• "The sentence on page 8, paragraph 2 is unclear. Please rephrase it for clarity."
• "The abbreviation 'ANOVA' is used without being defined. Please define it the first time it is used."
• "Reference [number] is incomplete. Please provide the full citation information."

How to Phrase Minor Comments:

• "Please check the spelling of '[word]' on page [page number], line [line number]."
• "Consider rephrasing the sentence on page [page number], paragraph [paragraph number] for improved clarity."
• "Ensure consistency in the use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript."

5. Specific Comments

This is where you provide detailed comments on specific sections, paragraphs, or sentences of the manuscript. Be as specific as possible, and provide concrete suggestions for improvement.

Example:

"Page 3, paragraph 2: The authors state that 'social media use is associated with increased anxiety.' However, they do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Please provide citations to relevant studies or explain the reasoning behind this statement."

How to Phrase Specific Comments:

• "On page [page number], line [line number], the statement '[statement]' is not supported by the data presented. Please provide additional evidence or revise the statement."
• "In the methodology section, it would be helpful to provide more detail on the [specific procedure]. This would allow readers to better understand the study design."
• "The conclusion section could be strengthened by explicitly stating the limitations of the study."

6. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional)

This section is for any confidential comments that you wish to share with the editor but not with the author. This might include:

• Concerns about ethical issues: If you suspect that the authors have engaged in unethical research practices, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, you should inform the editor.
• Potential conflicts of interest: If you have a conflict of interest that could bias your review, you should disclose it to the editor.
• Concerns about the novelty or significance of the research: If you believe that the research is not novel or significant enough to warrant publication, you can explain your reasoning to the editor.

Example:

"I have concerns about the originality of this manuscript. Several sections appear to be very similar to previously published work by other authors. I recommend that the editor conduct a plagiarism check."

Dos and Don'ts of Writing Reviewer Comments

To further refine your reviewing skills, consider these dos and don'ts:

Do:

• Be Timely: Submit your review by the deadline.
• Be Thorough: Read the entire manuscript carefully and provide comprehensive feedback.
• Be Objective: Base your critique on scientific principles and evidence.
• Be Constructive: Frame your comments in a way that encourages improvement.
• Be Specific: Provide detailed comments and examples.
• Be Clear: Use clear and concise language.
• Be Professional: Maintain a respectful and courteous tone.
• Acknowledge Strengths: Highlight what the authors have done well.
• Suggest Solutions: Offer concrete suggestions for improvement.
• Focus on the Science: Keep the focus on the research itself, not the author.

Don't:

• Be Vague: Avoid general statements without specific examples.
• Be Harsh: Avoid using judgmental or accusatory language.
• Be Personal: Do not attack the author or their qualifications.
• Be Biased: Avoid letting personal opinions or biases influence your review.
• Be Superficial: Don't just focus on minor errors; address the major issues.
• Be Arrogant: Avoid implying that you are superior to the author.
• Be Unclear: Use clear and concise language.
• Miss the Deadline: Submit your review by the deadline.
• Violate Confidentiality: Do not share the manuscript with others or discuss it publicly.
• Offer Unqualified Praise or Criticism: Provide a balanced assessment.

Examples of Effective and Ineffective Comments

Let's look at some examples of how to phrase your comments effectively:

Ineffective: "This section is poorly written."

Effective: "The language in this section is unclear and difficult to understand. Consider rephrasing the sentences to improve clarity. For example, the sentence on page 5, paragraph 2 could be rewritten as follows: '[Suggested Rewording]'."

Ineffective: "The methodology is flawed."

Effective: "The methodology section lacks sufficient detail regarding the data collection process. Please provide more information on how the data was collected, including the specific procedures used and the measures taken to ensure data quality. This would strengthen the validity of the study."

Ineffective: "The discussion is too long and rambling."

Effective: "The discussion section could be more focused. Consider streamlining the discussion by removing redundant information and focusing on the most important findings. It would also be helpful to explicitly state the limitations of the study."

Utilizing Checklists and Guidelines

Many journals provide reviewers with checklists or guidelines to help them evaluate manuscripts. These checklists can be a valuable tool for ensuring that you cover all aspects of the manuscript and provide comprehensive feedback. Familiarize yourself with the journal's guidelines before starting your review.

The Importance of Tone

The tone of your review can have a significant impact on how the authors receive your feedback. Even if you have identified serious flaws in the manuscript, it's important to maintain a respectful and constructive tone. Avoid using harsh or judgmental language. Instead, focus on providing specific and actionable suggestions for improvement.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Nitpicking: Focusing on minor errors while overlooking major flaws.
• Overly Critical: Providing negative feedback without acknowledging the strengths of the manuscript.
• Being Vague: Making general statements without providing specific examples.
• Missing the Point: Failing to understand the research question or methodology.
• Imposing Personal Preferences: Criticizing the authors for not following your preferred style or approach.
• Using Sarcasm or Humor: This can be easily misinterpreted and is generally inappropriate.
• Delaying the Review: Submitting your review late can delay the publication process.

Conclusion

Writing effective reviewer comments is an essential skill for contributing to the scientific community. By following the principles outlined in this guide, you can provide authors with valuable feedback that helps them improve their work and advance knowledge in their field. Remember to be objective, constructive, specific, clear, thorough, and professional in your review. By focusing on the science and offering actionable suggestions, you can help authors strengthen their manuscripts and contribute to the quality of published research. The goal is not simply to find flaws, but to guide authors towards producing the best possible work. Your efforts as a reviewer play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and advancing the frontiers of scientific knowledge.