Get documents about "WICB - How to Write an Effective Review
Document Sample
WOMEN IN CELL BIOLOGY
How to Write an Effective Review
After many months or years of effort, a is familiar. If not, the reviewer must invest
manuscript is finally prepared and submit- time to accumulate the information neces-
ted to a scientific journal. The author an- sary to make a fair judgment about the qual-
ticipates the reviewers’ decision: accept ity of the manuscript and the science it de-
or reject. If the article wins positive reviews scribes. Is there enough time to research
and the paper is accepted the subject to do it justice?
for publication, all is well. We are responsible for
However, rejection and/or sending the message to Is there a conflict of inter-
negative reviews are disap- authors that It’s all about est for reviewing this sub-
pointing, sometimes infuri- advancing science. mission?
ating. All scientists have Although it is important to
experienced these feelings. be familiar with the field, it
Therefore, when we are is not fair to accept a request
asked to review other scientists’ work, it is to review if the reviewer cannot be objec-
important to provide useful and objective tive about the material presented. Perhaps
feedback that is constructive the author and reviewer are currently work-
and not personal. We are re- ing on the same project in a competitive
To assure the author that sponsible for sending the mes- field, or perhaps the author is someone
the reviewer understands sage to authors that It’s all with whom the reviewer and/or the
the manuscript correctly, about advancing science. reviewer’s lab has had a disagreement.
she may wish to phrase Based on experience as re-
this section in her own viewer and “reviewee”, sev- 2. Review the Material Using
words rather than cutting eral steps are offered to the Appropriate Criteria
and pasting sentences potential reviewer to help en-
from the manuscript. sure that a review is com- Journals usually provide reviewers with
pleted effectively: specific criteria for evaluating submissions.
Although many of the criteria are similar
1. Assess the Ability to Review the from one journal to another, it is necessary
Manuscript to judge whether the quality of the work
reaches the level of the journal’s expecta-
Is there time to do a good review? tion. Some journals prefer a mechanistic
The editorial office gener- analysis to a simple, de-
ally allows two weeks to a scriptive one. If the work is
month to complete a review. Comments should be a continuation of a study re-
A good block of time dur- clear, concise, focused on ported by the same author,
ing that period is required the science, and respect- does the current manuscript
to review, because it is dif- ful of the author. contain sufficient new data
ficult to review a little each to justify publication? Is the
day. If that time is not avail- text clear? Are the data
able, the review may be rushed and the re- fairly interpreted and not overreaching? Is
viewer may neglect to give the submission the quality of figures sufficient to support
the attention it deserves. conclusions? Are there no twists in logic?
Is the reviewer familiar enough with the 3. Provide Constructive Feedback
specific field to review the submission?
The reviewer is accountable for providing a
Usually, requests are to review submissions
response that gives the author enough infor-
on topics with which the potential reviewer
20 The ASCB Newsletter, Vol 27, No 6
mation to improve both the article and the as they don’t affect the overall scientific
research. There is almost always useful feed- value of the manuscript.
back that can be offered, even Reviewing articles al-
for excellent manuscripts that lows reviewers to learn
Avoid pushing your own
need no major revision. In- about new and
scientific views onto the
deed, this is where the re- exciting sci-
submission, instead focus-
viewer is best serving the pur- ence. The re- The reviewer is account-
ing only on evaluating the
pose of advancing good sci- view should be able for providing a re-
science of the submitted
ence: by providing construc- done impar- sponse that gives the au-
manuscript. Avoid nitpick-
tive feedback whether or not tially without thor enough information
ing over minor points and
the article is being recom- consideration to improve both the ar-
language, as long as they
mended for acceptance. In a of who pro- ticle and the research.
don’t affect the overall sci-
typical 1-2 page review, it may duced the
entific value of the manu-
be useful to include three sec- manuscript.
script.
tions: Comments should be clear,
1. Summary (2-3 sentences). concise, focused on the sci-
2. Overall evaluation of the research and ence, and respectful of the author. Every-
recommendation (1-2 paragraphs). one who reviews is also reviewed. The
3. Details supporting the evaluation (var- Golden Rule applies: when a review ar-
ies). rives with helpful comments to improve the
The review begins with a brief summary work, pay the same respect to the next au-
of the study stating the new and important thor whose manuscript you review. I
finding(s) reported in the manuscript. To —Ryoko Kuriyama
assure the author that the reviewer under-
stands the manuscript correctly, she may
wish to phrase this section in her own
words rather than cutting and pasting sen-
tences from the manuscript. Then, evalu-
ate the overall scientific merit by pointing
out the major significance and/or critical
problems of the study. Enumerate not only
weaknesses but also strengths of the manu-
script, which will encourage the author.
The recommendation of whether the manu-
script is published, is revised before being
accepted, or is rejected, is made based on
these criteria. If the submission is not be-
ing recommended for acceptance, it is im-
portant to clearly state in this section why.
If the manuscript is not accepted for
publication, provide details to support the
evaluation. This is the most important sec-
tion of the review. Pay particular attention
to the following two points. First, clarify
what the author could do to improve the
work, providing scientific reasons, as con-
crete as possible, for each part of the manu-
script about which there is concern. Sec-
ond, avoid pushing your own scientific
views onto the submission, instead focus-
ing only on evaluating the science of the
submitted manuscript. Avoid nitpicking
over minor points and language, as long
June 2004 21
