Perfecting peer review – A blog series with RSC Advances

© Pablo Hart/Getty Images

Following our popular series of Advancing with Advances ‘How to publish and not perish’, we are back with a second series! For this series we are looking at ‘perfecting peer review’ and insights into what makes a valuable reviewer report.

Over the next few weeks we will be releasing a post on perfecting peer review every Wednesday in collaboration with Professor N. Mariano Correa Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto, Argentina, who is knowledgeable and experienced Associate Editor for RSC Advances. We will be turning the spotlight on why peer review is important, what you can do to improve your review writing skills. We will also be highlighting what our Associate Editors and Authors find extremely beneficial in your reviewer reports.

You can look forward to seeing the following blogs on:

• Why should I write a report? Our in-house editors will provide guidance on the importance of peer review, why you may consider being a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal, and how to approach you reviewer report.
• Expected reports from external reviewers: An introduction by Professor N. Mariano Correa, who will use his experiences to highlight what a reviewer report should cover.
• Interviews with Associate Editors: Our experienced team of Associate Editors from a broad range of subject areas will provide insights into how they use your reviewer reports, and what aspects they find the most useful in making a decision on a manuscript.
  • Part 4 – Featuring Dr Donna Arnold (University of Kent), Professor Brenno Neto (Universidade de Brasilia), Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez (University of Alcalá) and Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
  • Part 5 – Featuring Dr Giacomo Saielli (University of Padova), Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra (University of South Africa) and Professor Leyong Wang (Nanjing University)
  • Part 6 – Featuring 10 Associate Editors

We hope you are as excited we are for a second series of Advancing with Advances. Tune in every Wednesday to catch the next instalment of perfecting peer review, and we hope it will be useful to anyone writing a reviewer report! Next week our in-house editors will provide guidance on the importance of peer review, why you may consider being a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal, and how to approach your reviewer report.

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer review or publishing with RSC Advances to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on X @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Check out more publishing tips and tricks from our Advancing with Advances: how to publish and not perish series!

RSC Advances looks forward to advancing the chemical sciences with you.

Why should I write a report?

Advice and guidance from in-house editors

Your role as a reviewer matters. Therefore, whether you’ve been invited to review a manuscript for the first time or the 15^th time, this blog written by the RSC Advances Editorial Office at the Royal Society of Chemistry hopes to explain the importance of reviewing for a journal and how it can benefit you as a researcher and as an author in your field. This blog will also cover key things to consider before agreeing to review, and offer guidance on how to tackle your reviewer report, how you can assist the author and the journal by offering suggestions to improve a manuscript and recommend accepting or rejecting it for publication.

Burlington House, London (Headquarters of the Royal Society of Chemistry)

What is peer review?

The process of assessing manuscripts from active researchers in a relevant field is crucial in making sure that the scientific record is accurate, trustworthy and of high quality. It is an integral part of getting great science into the world. We recognise the important role of our peer reviewers, offering support and recognition to every member of our network, for example through our Outstanding Peer Reviewer recognition. With the recent introduction to Transparent Peer Review at RSC Advances, we are committed to ensuring trust and rigour in our peer review processes.

The benefits of becoming a reviewer

Reviewing a manuscript will develop your skills in many ways as both a researcher and an author. You will be kept up to date with your chosen field, as well as expand your knowledge and understanding of the field. It also will help to increase your awareness of the publishing process as well as journal standards and expectations. As part of the peer review process, you will gain valuable insight into how articles are assessed, allowing you to become more prepared for when you submit an article to a journal. You will also learn to give constructive feedback in a clear and informative manner – these critical evaluation skills will help forward your career as a researcher.

When you are invited to review a manuscript, what is the first thing you do?

You may be invited to review for a journal at any time. You will likely be invited to review a particular manuscript the handling editor feels is within your field of research from your previous publishing output. When you receive this invitation, you will have access to the author list and the article abstract. There are a number of questions you must ask yourself before deciding you are an appropriate reviewer for this manuscript.

• Am I an expert? Do you have the right research background and the necessary knowledge to critically assess this paper? Are you an active researcher that has recently published work in this field? At the RSC, we require our reviewers to hold a PhD (or equivalent), be an active researcher, and have published recently in one or more peer-reviewed journals of comparable impact and reputation to the journal you are reviewing for.
• Will I be able to meet the deadline? You are given around 10 days to complete your report. If you have a busy schedule at the time of the invitation and are unlikely to be able to commit the time required to prepare a thorough report, you may consider declining, or asking the journal for an extension before accepting the invitation.
• Do I have a conflict of interest? Have you had any recent collaborations with the author that may sway your opinion of the work and conflict with the fairness of the peer review procedure?

If you choose to accept a reviewer invitation, the handling editor will be delighted. However, declining your invitation is just as valuable, as it lets us know you cannot provide a review and we can then invite alternative reviewers within a short time frame. After all, we want to deliver the author a decision on their manuscript in a timely manner. If you are unable to review the manuscript at this time, but you know someone who would be perfect, we really appreciate your recommendation for another reviewer.

And if you do agree to review, how do you go about it assessing a paper?

The aim of your report is to help the journal to decide if the work is suitable to publish; Therefore, please make sure to check the journal scope and standards before beginning your review. At the Royal Society of Chemistry, each journal has its own webpage that details what the editorial team is looking to publish. You can then consider whether the article is a good fit for the journal during your review.

Read the manuscript carefully and thoroughly. The process of reviewing is confidential, so the manuscript should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others, except in special cases where specific scientific advice may be used. In this event, the editor should be informed and you must provide the name of the researcher.

Be clear and constructive in your feedback. Try to write a report you would like to receive if you were the author. The more detailed you can be, the more beneficial your report is to the editor and the author. Your report is there to assist the editor to make a decision, but it is also a valuable opportunity for the authors to improve their manuscript.

For example, when preparing your report, avoid comments like this:

“Results need improvement”

This kind of comment is not useful to either the editor or the author. What results need improvement? What is concerning you about the results section? How can the results be improved?

Instead try:

“Results section could be significantly improved through evaluation/analysis of X, Y, Z. This would be beneficial to the manuscript as it would further highlight/clarify/prove A, B, C. “

This is much more detailed. It explains why the results section should be improved and the benefits of undertaking the further analysis.

Some other important points to consider include:

• Is the work understandable, and correct? If not, can you give any suggestions on how the authors should improve this. We advise that general comments on language, grammar or spelling errors should be avoided as this can be improved during the editing stage, however, we encourage you to comment on the areas where the language or grammar makes the meaning of the science unclear.
• Is it interesting, significant, and/or important? Providing suggestions on how to expand the study to make the work more significant is always gratefully received.
• Is the study well-presented?
• Be objective: review the research and not the researcher.
• Be polite in the language you use – think about what you would like to receive. Be diplomatic with your opinion.
• Check the data carefully – do the results support the conclusions? If you spot any potential ethical concerns, you can email the journal team directly, or highlight any concerns in the “comments to the editor”.
• Note: The “comments to the editor” are confidential comments that can only viewed by the editor. Any comments for the author should be included in the “comments to the author”.

Interested in becoming a reviewer? More information on becoming a reviewer can be found on our website: rsc.li/reviewer.

Tune in every Wednesday to catch the next instalment of this series on Advancing with Advances: perfecting peer review, and we hope it will be useful to anyone writing a reviewer report. Next week: Our first post from Professor N. Mariano Correa!

Don’t miss out on our additional posts on perfecting peer review below:

• Expected reports from external reviewers: An introduction by Professor N. Mariano Correa, who will use his experiences to highlight what a reviewer report should cover.
• Interviews with Associate Editors: Our experienced team of Associate Editors from a broad range of subject areas will provide insights into how they use your reviewer reports, and what aspects they find the most useful in making a decision on a manuscript.
  • Part 4 – Featuring Dr Donna Arnold (University of Kent), Professor Brenno Neto (Universidade de Brasilia), Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez (University of Alcalá) and Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
  • Part 5 – Featuring Dr Giacomo Saielli (University of Padova), Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra (University of South Africa) and Professor Leyong Wang (Nanjing University)
  • Part 6 – Featuring 10 Associate Editors

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer review or publishing with RSC Advances to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on X @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Check out more publishing tips and tricks from our Advancing with Advances: how to publish and not perish series!

RSC Advances looks forward to advancing the chemical sciences with you.

Expected reports from external reviewers

Guest post by RSC Advances Associate Editor: Professor N. Mariano Correa Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto, Argentina

When an Editor invites potential reviewers for an article, they know that a challenging journey is about to start.

We know that the scientific community is finite and that everybody is extremely busy, however, we also believe that peer review is vital for the publishing process. Thorough peer review upholds the quality and validity of publications and is a trusted process by the scientific community. The reviewers play a unique role in evaluating the scientific merit, originality, and accuracy of submitted articles before they are accepted for publication. This blog aims to shed light on the essential role reviewers play in the review process.

What does an Editor need from the external report?

1. Impartial Evaluation: The external reports should come from experts in their respective fields who are not affiliated with the authors of the submitted article. This impartiality is crucial as it helps ensure that the review process remains unbiased and free from conflicts of interest. As they are not part of the author’s institution or research project, external reviewers can provide objective and unbiased feedback on the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
2. Identification of errors and improvements: By carefully examining the submitted article we expect external reviewers to determine whether the research meets the rigorous standards expected within the scientific community. In their evaluation, they should identify potential flaws, inaccuracies, or unsupported conclusions. Highlighting these issues in the reviewer reports maintains the credibility of the journal and the broader scientific discourse.

It is also expected that the reviewers’ valuable insights and constructive criticism enable authors to address weaknesses and make necessary improvements, enhancing the overall quality of the article.

3. Constructive feedback to the authors: One of the primary roles of external reviewers is to analyse the research methodology, experimental design, data analysis, and interpretation of results. By meticulously examining these aspects of the manuscript, reviewers can highlight any inconsistencies or errors in the research. Reviewer reports where concerns are clearly identified and explained are extremely valuable to the authors, it allows them to improve their manuscript and to potentially further their research. The reviewer reports (especially when the journal works under a single-anonymised scheme) should be constructive and polite.
4. Reports on time: Last but not least, the time for the reviewer reports take to be submitted is extremely important. Everybody expects to receive a decision on their manuscript as quickly as possible but, this can be dependent on the time taken to receive the reviewers’ response.

Finally, the reviewer reports and the feedback they provide are critical to ensuring an excellent standard of scientific work. So please, next time you are invited to review a manuscript, think about how valuable your time and feedback are, and how potentially someone is also being asked to review your work too. This vital collaborative effort between reviewers and authors ensures the publication process upholds scientific integrity that drives progress and innovation. This is how the scientific world works.

We hope you have found this post useful. Tune in every Wednesday to catch the next instalment of Advancing with Advances: perfecting peer review. Next week, our experienced team of Associate Editors from a broad range of subject areas will provide insights into how they use your reviewer reports, and what aspects they find the most useful in making a decision on a manuscript.

Don’t miss out on our additional posts on perfecting peer review below:

• Why should I write a report? Our in-house editors will provide guidance on the importance of peer review, why you may consider being a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal, and how to approach you reviewer report.
• Interviews with Associate Editors: Our experienced team of Associate Editors from a broad range of subject areas will provide insights into how they use your reviewer reports, and what aspects they find the most useful in making a decision on a manuscript.
  • Part 4 – Featuring Dr Donna Arnold (University of Kent), Professor Brenno Neto (Universidade de Brasilia), Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez (University of Alcalá) and Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
  • Part 5 – Featuring Dr Giacomo Saielli (University of Padova), Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra (University of South Africa) and Professor Leyong Wang (Nanjing University)
  • Part 6 – Featuring 10 Associate Editors

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer review or publishing with RSC Advances to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on X @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Check out more publishing tips and tricks from our Advancing with Advances: how to publish and not perish series!

RSC Advances looks forward to advancing the chemical sciences with you.

Interviews with Associate Editors

Our Associate Editors offer some Advice

At RSC Advances we have a team of around sixty-five hard working Associate Editors, who handle your manuscript, from initial assessment to their final decision. They are active researchers and experts in their respective fields, and therefore have an in-depth understanding of what it takes to get work published.

To gain more insight into the world of peer-review, we have asked our Associate Editors two questions:

1. What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?
2. When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

Here are what our Associate Editors Dr Donna Arnold, Professor Brenno Neto, Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez and Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza had to say:

Dr Donna Arnold, University of Kent, UK

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

One of the most important things is to provide evidence for the recommendations you are making. This is crucial to be able to make an effective decision. It is not particularly useful if the decision of the reviewer, for example, is reject but there is no information to qualify why this is the case. Another important consideration is that the review is based on the science presented in the manuscript. I have seen some reviews which are limited to ” not well written”. I know sometimes this does make it hard to read or to interpret the science, but it is better to state something like “the conclusions are not particularly clear” as this is more useful to both the editors and the authors.

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

I first read through the manuscript and make myself some notes on queries I have. I then develop this into a report with a reread of the manuscript. I think it is really important to remember that there are often early career researchers at the end of this process, I then go through my comments to make sure that the tone of the review is correct. I have seen firsthand the damage a flippant or aggressive review can do to someone early in their career. This is not useful for anyone. I think it is easy as a reviewer to sometimes become frustrated when we receive something which we perceive to not be of high enough quality. Peer review is an important part of the process and as such we should continually remind ourselves of this and act accordingly. If I have a particularly tough review, I will sometimes sit on it for a couple of days and come back and make sure that my review is fair and that I have not poured frustrations from something else into my review. Lastly, I always try to ensure that my criticisms are constructive and that I provide clear guidelines for how the manuscript might be improved even if my decision is reject.

Other comments

Some final comments on a good review. We have all been invited to review because we have expertise in the field. This is an honour and reflection of our own standing. It is not an opportunity to push up our own metrics and citations. Sometimes it is necessary to point authors to some work that they may have missed. In this case we should make sure as reviewers that we provide a balanced list of potential papers and not just our own. Also just providing a long list of our own references to be included in a manuscript compromises the anonymity of the review process!

Professor Brenno Neto, Universidade de Brasilia, Brazil

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

A well-written report must be concise, precise, balanced, and fair. It should address critical aspects, such as the scientific quality, advancements in the subject matter of the submitted work, and its potential impact. This may seem simple to do, but in reality, it can be a truly challenging task sometimes. Politeness is paramount, even when evaluating what might be considered the worst submitted manuscript. It is essential to assess the quality of conducted experiments, ensure that all necessary analyses have been performed, verify the accuracy of characterizations, and the purity of molecules/materials used in the study. Lastly, state whether the work is poised to make a significant contribution to the field and if the scientific content has been presented in the best possible way. By providing constructive criticism and highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the submission, the reviewer can help authors improve their work and significantly contribute to the editor’s decision.

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

In the role of a reviewer, I first check the experimental procedure in detail and the provided characterizations. If the manuscript checks these two essential items, I will know that the science it contains is trustworthy. Otherwise, why should I go further?

I always try to provide a balanced and fair report by treating the manuscript submitted as I wish all of my own were. A well-written manuscript, with well-constructed figures and schemes, always makes a good impression. If it has a piece of well-built supporting information, it adds positively to my overall impression of the work. You may wish to check some important tips . If some experiment, reference, or discussion is missing, I will indicate it. I try to remember that my role as a reviewer, at first instance, is to help authors, but not to be their harsh critic, like “reviewer #2” is seen in many scientific jokes and memes.

Considering that the submitted work has checked for these important aspects and assuming it has been submitted to the correct forum, I will be glad to recommend your manuscript for publication, regardless of whether major or minor revisions are suggested.

Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez, University of Alcalá, Spain

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

A balance and detailed report discussing the novelty and key points that justify publication, as well as any experimental issues. My preferred structure is: 1. A main paragraph describing the novelty and key points that justify (or not) publication and fit for the journal, as well as the clear recommendation to accept, reject, major revision, etc. As an editor, we are an expert in the field but not the best expert on a very specific topic not close to our research line. 2. Major comments, in bullet points (for example missing experiments, missing citations, novelty issues) and 3. Minor comments (normally, spelling mistakes, figure display, etc). Another key point is that your report is in line with the default options to select when you send the template (if you recommend minor revision, please select minor revision). And last, but not least, be professional and constructive, especially in rejection or when requesting extensive additional experiments, justifying it with appropriate references.

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

As a reviewer, I like to provide my report as specified in the previous points. When I review an article, I read the title, the aims at the end of the introduction (to see the match) and the figures. In the figures I check appropriate material characterization, error bars, adequate captions, etc. Then, I read the full article and annotate on a separate sheet of paper potential doubts, errors, etc. Next, I check for similar literature to detect novelty issues, etc. After this, I elaborate my report and read it carefully. I always try to be supportive, even in the event of rejection, so the authors can improve the manuscript.

Tips and tricks

1. Do not accept the reviewer invitation if you are very busy.
2. Make sure that the topic fits in line with your research or at least is familiar to you.
3. Be constructive and support the authors, even in the event of rejection. We are all authors of scientific articles!
4. Structure your report: Main general comments (novelty!), major comments, minor comments.
5. Provide appropriate references and evidence.
6. Enjoy! Reviewing is a (unpaid) job, but you are learning new scientific discoveries and progress. Most importantly, you are supporting the scientific community!

Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

When searching for reviewers, I typically seek individuals who possess greater familiarity with the specific topic to which the article belongs. Therefore, a reviewer should initially provide a concise summary of the proposal presented by the authors and subsequently demonstrate to the Editor how that work fits within the existing literature, highlighting the major contributions made by the research group. Identifying whether the work builds upon previously published manuscripts is a crucial factor as it aids in the interpretation and determination of the expected impact of that contribution. Additionally, it is of great importance to the editors that the reviewers can interpret the data presented by the authors and, whenever possible, offer an alternative perspective to what is being presented, either through direct questions or comments.

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

Particularly, I endeavour to divide the reading of a manuscript under review into three parts. The initial reading aims to comprehend the contributions offered by the team of researchers and the potential impact they may have on the literature. Subsequently, a more thorough examination is conducted, seeking a deeper understanding of the results and the necessary information to fully grasp the work. After these two readings, I usually feel sufficiently informed to make a decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. The choice between minor and major revisions, in my case, only occurs once the evaluation is completely elaborated.

The conclusion of the evaluation generally takes place after a third reading, which I employ as a revision. To format the evaluation and deliver it to the responsible editor, I initially provide a concise summary of the main discoveries presented by the author and attempt, to the best of my ability, to establish connections with the existing literature on that specific topic. In a second phase, I present my considerations regarding the significance of the article, assess whether the employed methods are appropriate, and subsequently determine if the conclusions are supported by the obtained results. Lastly, I incorporate questions that should be included in the manuscript to enhance the presented outcome and highlight necessary corrections.

The central point that I consistently emphasize is that we must judge a work based on what has been presented to us, rather than our personal preferences for its content.

We hope you have found this post useful. Tune in next Wednesday to catch the next instalment of Advancing with Advances: perfecting peer review. Next week, more of our Associate Editors  will provide their insight into reviewer reports.

Don’t miss out on our additional posts on perfecting peer review below:

• Why should I write a report? Our in-house editors will provide guidance on the importance of peer review, why you may consider being a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal, and how to approach you reviewer report.
• Expected reports from external reviewers: An introduction by Professor N. Mariano Correa, who will use his experiences to highlight what a reviewer report should cover.
• Interviews with Associate Editors: Our experienced team of Associate Editors from a broad range of subject areas will provide insights into how they use your reviewer reports, and what aspects they find the most useful in making a decision on a manuscript.
  • Part 4 – Featuring Dr Donna Arnold (University of Kent), Professor Brenno Neto (Universidade de Brasilia), Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez (University of Alcalá) and Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
  • Part 5 – Featuring Dr Giacomo Saielli (University of Padova), Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra (University of South Africa) and Professor Leyong Wang (Nanjing University)
  • Part 6 – Featuring 10 Associate Editors

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer review or publishing with RSC Advances to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on X @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Check out more publishing tips and tricks from our Advancing with Advances: how to publish and not perish series!

RSC Advances looks forward to advancing the chemical sciences with you.

Interviews with Associate Editors

Our Associate Editors offer some Advice

At RSC Advances we have a team of around sixty-five hard working Associate Editors, who handle your manuscript, from initial assessment to their final decision. They are active researchers and experts in their respective fields, and therefore have an in-depth understanding of what it takes to get work published.

To gain more insight into the world of peer-review, we have asked our Associate Editors two questions:

1. What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?
2. When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

Here are what some of our Associate Editors Dr Giacomo Saielli, Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra & Professor Leyong Wang had to say:

Dr Giacomo Saielli, University of Padova, Italy

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

First, the report should have a short (it can be very short, actually) introduction mentioning the title and/or the subject and/or the first author, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. This is more to make it clear to the authors, rather than to the editor, that the reviewer really reviewed the right paper.

More substantially: the reviewer should check that their recommendation (Reject, Major Revisions, Minor Revisions, Accept) matches the comments that will be sent to the authors. Based on my experience, it is not rare to have reports asking for very significant changes which amount to re-doing the work from scratch, and then recommend a Major Revision, where a Reject recommendation would have been more appropriate. Or, on the other side, to receive a Reject recommendation while the comments to the authors are mostly concerned with technical details of the experiments or calculations that could be easily discussed with the authors, if we give them a chance to clarify such points.

Another important point is, for positive reports such as Accept or Minor Revisions, to write the reasons why the paper is good. If the work is timely, if it fills a gap in the literature, if the experiments and analysis are solid and the results are interesting, it is a good idea to write down all these points and to support such statements with a detailed answer, rather than simply saying “this is a nice piece of work, I recommend publication”. A good reason for doing this is that more often than not an Editor can end up with two conflicting reports with opposite recommendations and in most cases the negative report is full of details about what is supposedly wrong with the paper. A positive report also full of details about why the paper is good, will help to make a more balanced decision.

Finally, it would be very helpful for the authors if the comments of the reviewer actually suggested ways to improve the paper rather than generic statements like “the Conclusions should be improved”. How can it be improved? What is missing? If the reviewer can give a hint on how to improve that particular section, that would be highly appreciated by the authors.

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

The most important steps for a reviewer (and therefore for myself when I review a manuscript) have to be taken before the real review begins! It is important to think about two key issues: i) is the paper within my area of expertise? ii) if the answer to the first question is Yes, do I have enough time to finish the report before the deadline? And if one or both answers are No, please just reply that you are not available, possibly suggesting other potential reviewers.

These points might appear not important, but there is nothing more annoying for authors (as we all know being also authors ourselves) than waiting week after week for an answer. This may lead to the author blaming the editor who, in fact, cannot do anything else except invite new reviewers and wait for their reports.

Having said that, when I review a paper I first focus on the Introduction and Conclusions to get an idea of the main results presented by the authors. It also happens that for specialized journals (at variance with RSC Advances which is a general chemistry journal), I try to evaluate whether or not the work fits within the scope of the journal. In a non-negligible number of cases, I had papers with very good results that were somehow not suitable for the journal at hand.

Then, in the second reading I go deeper into the details of the results presented and I try to get an idea of the good points and possible mistakes that should be brought to the attention of the editor and authors.

Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra, University of South Africa, Johannesburg

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

Reviewers should identify the novelty of the work, how the work provides new knowledge contribution and help the other researchers to refine their efforts for ongoing and future investigations in that area. Reviewers should critically go through the article and assess its importance for accommodating multidisciplinary / interdisciplinary / translational research. Scientific investigations with an apt and thorough rationalization are of prime significance that must be taken care of while reviewing the article.

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

As a reviewer, I strictly follow the above-mentioned guidelines. Additionally, I look for any similar work that has been already published with more advanced knowledge contribution in the respective research area. Further, I look to see if the manuscript is well presented scientifically and if the study holds a background and hypothesis for the purpose / objective of the study. It is also utmost importance for me that the study aligns its course to the hypothesis as well as rationalise its results with suitable discussion. Any scientific investigation is based on set of studies that should be in order of optimized parameters. These parameters should integrate and self-align with the observations / results obtained and therefore must lead to significant discussion. Priority is to uncover the facts that set an example for the other researchers.

Professor Leyong Wang, Nanjing University, China

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

A good review is not only to help the editor to reach a decision about whether to publish or not, a good review will also help the authors improve this and future manuscripts.

A reasonable review would be better to start out with a short summary, and then to point out the main strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses with neutral and objective tone. The reviewer’s comments could support well the recommendation for revision or rejection.

In the second part, list any major flaw or concerns, any minor flaw is also important to the editor as well as the authors.

Occasionally, if the reviewer finds or already know of similar publications on the same topic and data elsewhere that the authors overlooked in their own literature search, please also mention this in the comments, which help both of editor’s decision and authors’ revision in future.

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

Before I accept an invitation to review a manuscript. I judge the research topic based on the title, abstract of manuscript, to determine whether it is within my field of research. I then consider my free time, and whether I am able to meet the expected deadline. After accepting to review a manuscript, I usually approach this task as follow:

1. Download the manuscript and supporting information and store in my computer.
2. Read the Title, Graphic Abstract, and Abstract quickly, I use about 5-10 min.
3. First, read the entire manuscript quickly to have overall impression, which need 20% of reviewing time roughly. Occasionally to make notes as I go. what is the paper about? how is it structured? How about the quality of Schemes and Figures? At this stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can.
4. Secondly, reading the entire manuscript and also supporting information, I write suggestions and comments, then make a decision on my recommendation. To which roughly 40-50 % of reviewing time is devoted. In this step, I consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art; whether the authors have considered the full context of the topic of present manuscript. I check the references, are the important papers are cited or not? I also check whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the results in the present manuscript.
5. Thirdly, after reading the manuscript and supporting information quickly, I check the compliance of the authors to the journal guidelines and usage of specialized jargon terms. This step needs about 10-20% of reviewing time.
6. Last but not least, I reread and revise my reviewer report to be sure it is balanced and fair before I submit my recommendation. This needs about 10% of reviewing time.

We hope you have found this post useful. Tune in next Wednesday to catch the next instalment of Advancing with Advances: perfecting peer review. Next week, more of our Associate Editors  will provide their insight into reviewer reports.

Don’t miss out on our additional posts on perfecting peer review below:

• Why should I write a report? Our in-house editors will provide guidance on the importance of peer review, why you may consider being a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal, and how to approach you reviewer report.
• Expected reports from external reviewers: An introduction by Professor N. Mariano Correa, who will use his experiences to highlight what a reviewer report should cover.
• Interviews with Associate Editors: Our experienced team of Associate Editors from a broad range of subject areas will provide insights into how they use your reviewer reports, and what aspects they find the most useful in making a decision on a manuscript.
  • Part 4 – Featuring Dr Donna Arnold (University of Kent), Professor Brenno Neto (Universidade de Brasilia), Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez (University of Alcalá) and Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
  • Part 5 – Featuring Dr Giacomo Saielli (University of Padova), Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra (University of South Africa) and Professor Leyong Wang (Nanjing University)
  • Part 6 – Featuring 10 Associate Editors

Check out more publishing tips and tricks from our Advancing with Advances: how to publish and not perish series!

RSC Advances looks forward to advancing the chemical sciences with you.

Interviews with Associate Editors

Our Associate Editors offer some Advice

At RSC Advances we have a team of around sixty-five hard working Associate Editors, who handle your manuscript, from initial assessment to their final decision. They are active researchers and experts in their respective fields, and therefore have an in-depth understanding of what it takes to get work published.

To gain more insight into the world of peer-review, we have asked our Associate Editors two questions:

1. What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?
2. When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

Here are what some of our Associate Editors had to say:

What are the most important points for a reviewer to include and discuss to help guide your decision?

When an Editor is searching for reviewers, they typically seek individuals who possess greater familiarity with the articles specific topic.

Therefore, a reviewer should:

• Begin with a short summary: Summarise of the main points developed in the article, and subsequently demonstrate to the Editor how that work fits within the existing literature, highlighting the major contributions made by the research group.
• Evaluate the potential impact, novelty and significance of the study: Does the study address a specific gap in the field, or build upon previously published manuscripts. This knowledge aids the interpretation and determination of the expected impact of that contribution.
• Point out the merits and drawbacks of the study.
• Be constructive, provide feasible suggestions about how to improve the overall quality of a manuscript.
  • Suggest additional experiments that are scientifically relevant for the author to consider
• Check the data in the article and the supporting information. Does data presented adequately support the conclusions? Is there anything that can be added to the document to validate their findings?
• Comment upon the any lack of expertise (if any) in any part of the manuscript the reviewer may have.

When making your final recommendation, take care explaining the recommendation. It is important that the reviewer considers the point of view of the authors, and when making your recommendation, convince the authors and editor in a way that you would like to receive as an author. This point is also very important for the decision of the Editor, which has to be motivated upon factual and sound comments.

“It is of great importance to the editors that the reviewers can interpret the data presented by the authors and, whenever possible, offer an alternative perspective to what is being presented, either through direct questions or comments.” – Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza

When you act as a reviewer, how do you approach this task and what are the initial steps that you take when assessing a manuscript?

“I read the abstract and conclusion. If needed, I look quickly at specific results (graph, table, etc.) and evaluate novelty, and originality. If needed, I look for other bibliographies to be sure how the work places in the literature. Then, I read the article carefully, taking notes, before writing the report.” – Professor Camilla Abbehausen

“As a reviewer, initially I check the Abstract and conclusion to get the brief idea on important achievements of the paper. Then I try to look for the novelty and impact of the work as compared to existing literature on similar studies. From the introduction and literature survey, I judge whether the claimed contributions are justified.  I check the important results and the presentation skills of the data with in-depth discussion on the mechanisms involved. Whether authors have provided enough discussion on the important results with insights from the supported experimental or theoretical insights are checked to know more about the quality of the work.” – Dr Chandra Sekhar Rout

“Usually I have a first general look at the paper, the title, how it is organized (hence the importance of subtitles structuring the subparts in the R&D), and at the figures and schemes. I then carefully read the abstract, which I expect to match the first impression I’ve just had. I then take a look at the literature with the keywords I’ve identified. Finally, I take a detailed reading of the paper in this order: introduction, results and discussion, experimental methods and supporting information.”

• Experimental data should be well-presented and clearly explained to the reader.
• Sometimes over-selling the work leads to a suspicion. There are many fashions in chemical sciences and can be used and even manipulated to over-sell results. This feeling prompts me to check even more closely what could be wrong.”

– Dr Fabienne Dumoulin

“When acting as a reviewer, I first read the abstract, then the conclusion, then the last part of the introduction which usually summarizes the global methodology. Then, I go through each of the figures and schemes, keeping in mind the points stated in the aforementioned sections. Doing this, I can link the main features of the article with the major points that the authors have focused on. Also, I can then draw my own conclusions on some points of the research outcomes. Only then, I read the whole article to thoroughly assess it.” – Professor Franck Dumeignil

As a reviewer, consider the following points when assessing and considering a manuscript:

• Whether the manuscript fall within the scope of the journal, e.g. for RSC Advances, does this work have sufficient chemistry contributions
• Are the aims, the rationale, and the outcomes of the study clearly stated in the abstract and introduction sections
• Is the literature search sufficient for the study
• Is the methodology of the study described in detail to allow for its reproducibility
• Are the results supported by appropriate statistical analyses
• Are the figures and/or tables clear and relevant
• Are the interpretation of results supported by the experimental results
• Is the discussion section of the study constructed well. Are any strengths, limitations, and future directions recommended and stated by the authors
• Are the conclusions consistent with the results and discussion? Consider what question is being addressed
• Identify any misleading or ambiguous information or results that should not be published

That wraps up our series Advancing with Advances: perfecting peer review. We hope that you find these insights useful when considering your next reviewer report!

Don’t miss out on our additional posts on perfecting peer review below:

• Why should I write a report? Our in-house editors will provide guidance on the importance of peer review, why you may consider being a reviewer for a peer reviewed journal, and how to approach you reviewer report.
• Expected reports from external reviewers: An introduction by Professor N. Mariano Correa, who will use his experiences to highlight what a reviewer report should cover.
• Interviews with Associate Editors: Our experienced team of Associate Editors from a broad range of subject areas will provide insights into how they use your reviewer reports, and what aspects they find the most useful in making a decision on a manuscript.
  • Part 4 – Featuring Dr Donna Arnold (University of Kent), Professor Brenno Neto (Universidade de Brasilia), Professor Beatriz Jurado Sánchez (University of Alcalá) and Professor Rodrigo Octavio de Souza (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
  • Part 5 – Featuring Dr Giacomo Saielli (University of Padova), Professor Shivani Bhardwaj Mishra (University of South Africa) and Professor Leyong Wang (Nanjing University)
  • Part 6 – Featuring 10 Associate Editors

You are welcome to send in any questions you have about peer review or publishing with RSC Advances to advances-rsc@rsc.org or post them on X @RSCAdvances #AdvancingWithAdvances.

Check out more publishing tips and tricks from our Advancing with Advances: how to publish and not perish series!

RSC Advances looks forward to advancing the chemical sciences with you.