Organise a journal peer-review report around actionable observations
Write an actionable journal peer-review report with specific observations, proportionate requests and an original fictional comment example.
About 4 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Make each important review comment identify a specific issue, explain its consequence and give the author a clear question or revision task. A list of reactions leaves both the author and editor to infer what matters. An organised report shows the basis and priority of your assessment.
Follow the journal’s criteria, review form and instructions. This guide concerns writing an invited review within your competence; it does not teach you to assess every research method or supply a verdict about a real manuscript. Check the journal’s requirements for confidentiality, competing interests and permitted tools before handling review material.
Establish the report’s main message
Write a short account of what you understand the manuscript to be doing and the most consequential issues you identified. Check that your summary represents the actual work rather than the paper you would have preferred to receive.
PLOS’s review-writing guidance recommends organising a report, prioritising major and minor concerns and supporting feedback with concrete examples. Apply those writing principles alongside the particular journal’s criteria. Its sample concerns are not universal reasons to reject every kind of study.
Separate what you can assess from what you cannot. A clear report can state that an aspect is outside your expertise or that necessary information was unavailable. Do not replace that boundary with an unsupported assurance or accusation.
Turn a reaction into an inspectable comment
Locate the relevant section, paragraph, figure or other item. State what you observed there, why it affects your reading and what clarification or change would address the issue. Distinguish a missing explanation from a demonstrated error.
Avoid prescribing an exact solution when several defensible revisions are possible. The author’s response may clarify the existing work, narrow a conclusion or supply relevant missing information. Your comment should make the underlying concern understandable.
Work through an original fictional comment
The manuscript and observations below are invented teaching material. They describe no real paper, author, journal decision or methodological finding.
Imagine a fictional manuscript compares the wording of notices from one venue. Its closing paragraph describes the discussion as applying to every type of venue. The following comments have different usefulness:
| Fictional comment | Problem or useful feature | Revision direction |
|---|---|---|
| The conclusion is weak | The issue and its location are unclear | Identify the particular conclusion and why it exceeds the supplied material |
| The final paragraph extends a single-venue comparison to all venue types | The author can locate and inspect the scope change | Ask the author to explain the wider basis or keep the conclusion within the examined setting |
| Add a large new study of every venue type | It dictates extensive new work without explaining whether it is needed for this manuscript | State the scope concern and evaluate a proportionate response under the journal’s criteria |
A bounded comment could read: “The closing paragraph appears to extend the single-venue comparison to all venue types. Please clarify the basis for that extension or limit the conclusion to the setting examined.” It identifies an issue without inventing an error in the underlying observations or assuming the author’s motives.
The example is about reporting an evidentiary boundary. It is not an assessment that the fictional study is publishable or that every single-setting study has the same limitation.
Prioritise and keep the report internally consistent
Distinguish concerns that affect the main interpretation from smaller presentation issues, using the journal’s requested categories. Number comments where that helps the author respond clearly. A long spelling list should not conceal the issue on which your overall assessment depends.
Check that your opening assessment and final recommendation follow from the comments you actually made. If the journal asks for a recommendation separately, follow that process. Keep comments in the appropriate author-facing or editorial channel under the journal’s instructions; do not use a private channel to substitute an unexplained decision for the concerns authors need to address.
Review the report before submitting it
Read each comment for location, reason and requested action. Remove repeated points and personal judgements about the authors. Check references you suggest and explain their relevance rather than promoting work merely because it is yours.
Use the evidence guide to check whether your assessment outruns what you observed. The revision-plan guide shows why specific, distinguishable comments are easier for a writer to act on. Follow the journal’s actual submission process, including any requested explanation of what you could not assess.
