by Lauren Oddo and Melanie Arenson, University of Maryland, College Park
Writing, publishing, and editing are critical skills for graduate students, but most receive little to no training in these domains (Badenhorst & Xu, 2016; O’Hara, et al., 2019; Hopwood, 2010; Doran et al, 2014). In this article, we describe the benefits of peer reviewing, detail methods for getting involved, and provide guidance for how to complete an effective review.
Why peer review?
Engagement in the peer review process helps students learn what is required for successful academic writing and publishing (Reynolds & Thompson, 2011; Hopwood, 2010). For example, peer reviewing requires students to think critically about presenting clear and compelling research arguments. Consequently, those who engage in the process report developing important knowledge about the culture and process of publishing in academic journals, as well as improved professional collaboration (Hopwood, 2010). Additionally, peer reviewing is often required for tenure, promotion, and general success in academic careers (Chittum & Bryant, 2014; Badenhorst & Xu, 2016; Ferris & Brumback, 2010). Therefore, early and ongoing peer review experience helps graduate students build a valuable professional skill set.
Getting involved
Peer review with an advisor
Ask to co-review an article with your mentor, advisor, and/or PI. Beginning your peer review journey with a knowledgeable mentor has multiple benefits. First, they can provide structure, models, and expertise on the topic. Second, they can provide feedback on your review, allowing you to build your skill over time.
Write and publish
The publication and review process is cyclical, and journal editors often reference the literature to look for knowledgeable reviewers. Additionally, journals track article submissions and can request that those authors complete a review in the future.
Indicate your interest in serving as an ad-hoc reviewer
Most journals have a link on their website for interested reviewers to register. Some journals will also post calls for reviewers on professional listservs. If your research aligns with the journal outlet, consider applying to be a reviewer.
Consider journals with training and reviewer opportunities
Some journals prioritize training for all new reviewers. For example, Translational Issues in Psychological Science is an APA Journal that focuses on graduate student development and requires (and provides) reviewer training. Many universities also have student-led journals, so consider whether one exists at your university.
Components of a good review
A main goal of reviews is to help to improve the quality of the submission for all researchers, ultimately strengthening the scholarship and disseminating good work to the community (Wallace, 2019). Therefore, provide constructive points of feedback in your review with the goal to help your peers improve the quality of work. At the start, it may be useful to read reviewer guidelines to craft the most helpful review. Many journals provide instructions for reviewers, consistent with journal scope and mission.
In addition, approach the review process intentionally, with a desire to enhance the submission. This means avoiding accepting reviews that you do not wish to complete, cannot devote the time to handle, or do not have the relevant expertise. Decline an invitation if you do not have the time or energy to devote to a thoughtful, timely, and fair review. Many invitations offer recommendations for other reviewers, and it is helpful to editors to provide your suggestions for possible reviewers there. Additionally, respond to your review request promptly. Ask for an extension if the deadline is not feasible, ideally upon your initial response to the invitation so that the editor can plan accordingly.
Practical tips for reviews
First reading
Consider a three-part reading, consistent with existing recommendations (e.g., Stiller-Reeve, 2018; Wallace, 2019). In your first read, generate your overall impression of the paper. Orient yourself to the scope, aims, methodology, and findings. Take notes on overarching points. After your first pass, summarize your understanding of the submission. Also note whether the submission aligns with the scope of the journal outlet as indicated on their webpage. Review the overarching mission of the journal, as this will help you curate your feedback to the outlet’s mission. In addition, note any areas in the submission that align with your area(s) of expertise. You can return to these areas in your second reading to further scrutinize (Stiller-Reaves, 2018). Finally, flag any concerns in the first reading that halt the review process. For instance, if a submission contains a fatal methodological flaw or omits a section, such concerns would limit your ability to interpret findings and others’ ability to replicate the science. In these cases, consider describing your concerns in detail and submitting the review (Stiller-Reeve, 2018).
Second reading
In your second read, critically evaluate the science (Stiller-Reaves, 2018). Ask yourself if the methodological approach is appropriate for the data. Are the research questions logical and clearly stated? Are the hypotheses testable? Do the authors properly interpret the results? While your focus will be on providing critical feedback, also note a few elements of the submission that are strengths. Consider sorting your commentary into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. This helps you organize your feedback and clearly convey any revision priorities for the authors. Provide page numbers and reference lines to assist the authors in revision.
Third and final reading
In your third read, focus on structure and organization. Avoid copy-editing the grammar and language. If the writing significantly interferes with your ability to understand and thoughtfully review the science, consider noting your concern and encouraging resubmission when such issues are addressed (Wallace, 2019). Provide constructive feedback about writing by supporting your concerns with specific examples.
Finalizing your review
At the end of your three-part process, you should have amassed a list of comments. Compile your review based on order of importance and/or by section. Consider beginning your review with a brief summary of the article, strengths and weaknesses, and your recommendation. Read your review aloud to ensure clarity and edit accordingly. Finally, ask yourself if your feedback is constructive and adheres to the “golden rule” of peer reviewing: “review for others as you would have others review for you” (McPeek et al., 2009).
_____________________________________________________________
References
Badenhorst, C., & Xu, X. (2016). Academic publishing: Making the implicit explicit. Publications, 4(3), 24.
Chittum, J. R., & Bryant, L. H. (2014). Reviewing to Learn: Graduate Student Participation in the Professional Peer-Review Process to Improve Academic Writing Skills. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 473-484.
Doran, J. M., Somerville, W., Harlem-Siegel, J., & Steele, H. (2014). The more you know: The impact of publication and peer-review experience on psychology graduate students. Teaching of Psychology, 41(2), 122-129.
Ferris, L. E., & Brumback, R. A. (2010). Academic merit, promotion, and journal peer reviewing: the role of academic institutions in providing proper recognition. Journal of child neurology, 25(5), 538-540.
Hopwood, N. (2010). Doctoral students as journal editors: Non-formal learning through academic work. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(3), 319-331.
McPeek, M. A., DeAngelis, D. L., Shaw, R. G., Moore, A. J., Rausher, M. D., Strong, D. R., Ellison, A. M., Barrett, L., Rieseberg, L., Breed, M. D., Sullivan, J., Osenberg, C. W., Holyoak, M., & Elgar, M. A. (2009). The Golden Rule of reviewing. The American Naturalist, 173(5). https://doi.org/10.1086/598847
O’Hara, L., Lower-Hoppe, L., & Mulvihill, T. (2019). Mentoring Graduate Students in the Publishing Process: Making It Manageable and Meaningful for Academics. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(2), 323-331.
Reynolds, J. A., & Thompson Jr, R. J. (2011). Want to improve undergraduate thesis writing? Engage students and their faculty readers in scientific peer review. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 209-215.
Stiller-Reeve, M. (2018, October 8). How to write a thorough peer review. Nature News. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06991-0
Wallace, J. (2019, September 17). How to be a good peer reviewer. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved December 26, 2021, from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/17/how-to-be-a-good-peer-reviewer/
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS).