blog

Peer review can be a confusing process at times and so to help cut out all the jargon and make it as simple as possible, we have developed the ‘Peer Review Experts’ blog series. Each week we’ll be bringing you top tips on a wide range of peer review subjects, straight from the experts; our very own peer-review team at F1000Research. This week, Yousuf Al-Mousawi, Senior Editorial Assistant at F1000Research is giving us the lowdown on structuring your review.

You’ve accepted a peer review invitation, you’ve read the article and you’re now ready to start writing your report – but where to start? Planning out your report’s structure can be a great way for you to clearly lay out your ideas and make sure you don’t miss any of the points you want to make, and it’s also a big help to the authors to have a coherent and organised review.

Getting started

• It might be helpful to start your report with a brief overview/summary of the article – describe the authors’ objectives (perhaps also considering the current state of the field), what methods they used, what their main findings were, and the importance of their findings in the context of their field.
• Briefly state your overall opinion of the article, ideally with reference to its main strength and/or limitation, before moving onto your more detailed discussion and suggestions.

The bulk of your review

Now that you’ve put pen to paper (figuratively, of course!) and started your review with a solid introduction, it’s now time to write the core section of your review. Here, you should discuss in detail your thoughts on the article and give any suggestions for improvement.

• It is particularly helpful to the authors to structure your main points in an organised fashion – for example, it is a good idea to address each section of the article in order (e.g. Introduction, Methods, Discussion, Conclusion, etc.).
• Alternatively, you could organise your comments as separate lists for the “Strengths” and “Weaknesses” of the article – this is particularly useful if you feel the article needs improvement in certain aspects but also has strong points that are worth highlighting to the authors and other readers.
• If you are suggesting improvements to the article, it would be useful to state which of these are major and minor suggestions and to write these suggestions as separate lists, so that it is easier for the authors to revise accordingly. A good example of this format is in Dr Michael Love’s report for an article published in F1000 Research, as shown below:

Following his introduction, Dr Love has organised his comments on the article as “Major” and “Minor” comments.

• Make sure your review matches the article type – each article type has its own set of mandatory questions which are tailored towards what the article should cover. If you are unsure of what to write or want to write a more detailed report, it might be helpful to structure the body of your report around these questions, by addressing them one a time, and discussing in more detail to what extent the article has addressed each point.
• If you answer “Partly” or “No” to any of the article-specific questions, please elaborate on why you have chosen this option and suggest possible improvements to help the authors address this.
• If answering “Yes” to any of the mandatory questions, feel free to discuss in more detail what was good about these aspects of the article so that other readers are aware of its strengths.

Top tips for fool-proof formatting

Now that you’ve written your main points on the article in an organised fashion, consider the handy tips below to make your review more presentable:

• Try to keep the formatting as consistent and reader-friendly as possible throughout your report – it is often preferable to include subheadings when discussing different sections of the article, and to use bullet points for lists.
• Pointing out any specific grammatical errors can be important, especially if they cause ambiguity or affect your understanding, but try to focus on the scientific content of the article as much as possible.
• If you want to suggest a grammar correction or alternative phrasing for a particular sentence/phrase, write the original sentence/phrase as it appears in the article first (as well as which section of the article it appears in), and then write your suggested edits, so that it is easier for the authors to identify the section to which you are drawing attention. A good example of this format is in Dr Thomas Trabold’s report (as shown below) for an article published in Gates Open Research, which is powered by F1000:

Dr Trabold has written his suggested grammar edits as a list at the end of his report – the section of the article where the grammar error appears is clearly indicated, followed by the suggested edit.

• Alternatively, you can also include a copy of the sentence/phrase with the edits underlined or written in bold text.
• If you wish to reference any articles in your report, please ensure that the referenced articles are subject-relevant and that you explain how the authors will find each reference useful in improving their own work. We would recommend using the Reference Manager on the online form to add any citations, but if you are unable to do this for any reason, please feel free to leave additional details (e.g. title, authors, source and year of publication, DOI if available) about the article(s) you wish to cite at the end of your report, and our Editorial Team will be happy to add the appropriate citations.

Wrapping up your review

You’re almost there – having already done the bulk of the work, your review should now be in good shape. To finish off your review, a brief conclusion can go a long way to clearly communicate what your overall thoughts on the article are:

• After you have given your main comments on the article, it can be very helpful to conclude your report by briefly stating/re-iterating your overall opinion on the article – for example, go over the main strength and/or weakness of the article, and the overall contribution it makes to the field. This should also help to clarify your selected approval status of the article. A good example of an effective conclusion is in Dr Patrick Vandewalle’s report for an article published in F1000Research, as shown below.

After listing his main points, Dr Vandewalle ended his report with a concise conclusion that effectively summarises his overall opinion of the article.

So there you have it, a short and handy guide to structuring your review for success – your review should now be good to go!

If you’re interested in reviewing for F1000Research and would like to know more please click the following link for our reviewer guidelines: https://f1000research.com/for-referees/guidelines. Also, check out a handy downloadable guide to peer-review.