Some thoughts on writing reviews of manuscripts
L.B. Railsback, Department of Geology, University of Georgia

A reviewer should have at least four goals in mind in reading a manuscript and preparing a review for the editor(s) of a journal:

    1)  Providing the editor(s) and author(s) with constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript. That's hopefully what you can write, but sometimes the list has to include incurable flaws too. It's a good idea to enumerate these comments and suggestions, so as to facilitate future communication between author(s) and editor(s) (e.g., so that the authors can write in a cover letter for their revised manuscript that "We have addressed Point 3 by clarifying that . . . .").

    2)  Providing the editor(s) with an evaluative opinion as to whether the manuscript should be published as it stands (a rare finding), published with minor revision (a common finding), published with major revision (a common finding), or rejected (not a common finding). Specific justification should support a recommendation of rejection.

    3)  Writing a review that the author(s) will find constructive, rather than insulting. It's tactful, for example, to critique the manuscript, rather than the authors or their work. It's also tactful, and often true, to say things like "I may be missing something important here, but I don't understand . . . (some specific item). At the very least, clarification is needed so that other readers don't run into the same problem".

    4)  Providing some quality control. For example, I often look at tables of data to see if figures presenting the data agree with the tables. Astounding things can emerge.

 

On the other hand, there are tasks not expected of reviewers:
    1) Correcting typographical errors and editing for style.
    2) Checking correspondence of references in text with the list of references cited.
    3) Checking adherence of the manuscript's format to the journal's format.

 

Here's a boilerplate review:

Dear Dr. __Editor's name__,

     This is my review of Manuscript #_(Editor's reference number)_ by _(authors)_ on _(at least a hint of the title)_.   The manuscript _(summary of the manuscripts key contents or conclusions)__.   I recommend (one of the options in Item 2 above), for the reasons discussed below.

1) ______

2) ______

3) ______

In summary, ___________. The comments listed above are meant to be constructive, and I hope they are of use to the authors as they revise their manuscript.

    Sincerely . . . .

 

You will also usually be asked to fill out a review form, on which standardized responses will be requested.

 

There is also a more general page on writing scientific papers, a page on editing scientific papers and theses, and a page on writing scientific grant proposals .

Email to Railsback (rlsbk@gly.uga.edu)
Railsback's main web page
UGA Geology Department web page