Speaker 1: In a previous video, I provided some tips for authors about how to deal with reviewers. Hi, I'm Karen McKee, and today I'm going to talk about the other side of the coin, which is how to be a good peer reviewer. In this video, I'll cover the ethics of reviewing, list some key questions to answer about a manuscript, and describe some do's and don'ts using examples from reviews I've written. Few of us are formally taught how to review a scientific paper and consequently must learn by trial and error. Unfortunately, this lack of training can lead to what I think of as destructive as opposed to constructive reviewers. The constructive reviewer carefully reads the manuscript and offers helpful and specific recommendations for improvement. The destructive reviewer fails to read the entire paper, misinterprets what they do read, or writes pages of nitpicking criticisms, sometimes making sarcastic or other inappropriate comments. There is a third type, the useless reviewer, who provides only a brief paragraph, positive or negative, but with no specific criticisms or suggestions for improvement. Let's consider some of the ways you can become a constructive peer reviewer. First, when the invitation arrives in your inbox, accept or decline as soon as possible. If you know you can't make the review deadline, decline or ask if an extension is possible. There are many reasons to accept an invitation to review, including providing a service to the scientific community or gaining early insight into new discoveries. For novice writers, serving as a reviewer will help you learn what good writing entails, what writing mistakes to avoid, and what journals look for in a manuscript. In deciding, consider whether you can conduct a fair and honest assessment. If you have a conflict of interest with any of the authors, notify the editor who can make the decision to have you proceed with the review or not. Sometimes I get a request to review a paper by someone I've worked with in the past or co-authored a paper with. If I feel I can provide an unbiased review, I accept, but inform the editor of the past relationship. If not, I decline and provide the reason to the editor. What if the author is a professional rival? In such a case, it may be difficult for a reviewer to provide an unbiased assessment. When faced with such a situation, I either decline or inform the editor of the potential conflict. In some cases, the editor may say, go ahead with the review. They will then consider my comments in view of that conflict. Needless to say, a reviewer should never appropriate the ideas or data being reviewed and maintain confidentiality about the manuscript. That means not discussing the manuscript with your colleagues or sharing the results with anyone. If the topic is outside your area of expertise, suggest alternative reviewers in your place. However, keep in mind that even a non-specialist can provide a useful review from the viewpoint of someone in the broader field of study. If you accept, be prepared to spend some time reading the manuscript and writing a thoughtful review. For me, a thorough review takes several hours, often spread over a few days. Although editors today do a good job of screening and rejecting without review those manuscripts that have no chance for publication in the journal, you may still get one that is full of typos, grammatical errors, or other problems making it difficult to assess the science. In such cases, it's appropriate to point these issues out to the editor and offer to review the paper after they are addressed by the author. It's not your job to copy-edit manuscripts. However, it is helpful to the author for you to point out occasional mistakes in punctuation, grammar, or formatting. But your main focus should be on the science. Here are some questions you want to ask yourself when reading the manuscript. Are the hypotheses testable and of importance to the field? Does the work move the field forward? Is the design sound without fatal flaws? Are the methods appropriate and up-to-date? Were the statistical tests appropriate? Do the data support the conclusions? Have the authors described the paper's limitations? Is the writing clear and concise? Is the title specific and does it clearly convey the content of the manuscript? Does the abstract accurately convey the study findings and significance? Are all the figures and tables necessary and meet journal specifications? Is the interpretation of the results sound and sufficient to adequately address the hypotheses posed? Does the paper consider past and current work and put the study's findings into perspective? Is the length of the paper appropriate? If not, what might be cut? Are all relevant sources properly cited? Did you enjoy reading the paper and would you cite it in your work? In writing a review, use these questions as a guide and clearly articulate your opinion about each major point. You may not be able to address all these questions, but you can likely answer most of them. Now here are a few do's and don'ts when writing your review. Try to point out positive aspects even in manuscripts that are problematic. Such comments tell the author that you have considered both positive and negative elements of their paper. I often begin a review with a general description of what I think are overall strengths and weaknesses in the manuscript. For example, this paper is well written and the introduction does an excellent job of setting the stage for the study. The objectives, which are clearly stated, are of interest to both researchers and resource managers. Although there were insufficient data to test all hypothetical relationships in all geographic sites, the results indicate where researchers may want to focus future work. Given the data limitations for some variables, however, I think the discussion was a bit too long. I'm not sure how to address this, except perhaps to combine some of the discussion of variables and minimize speculations where data is lacking. Be specific with your criticisms. Don't just say you disagree with something. Provide details about why you disagree. For example, this comment explains why I found one statement in a manuscript to be inaccurate and misleading. You can pause the video to read it. As you can see, I explain why their statement is confusing and suggest that it is easily fixed with some minor edits. If you think a statement is not well supported, explain specifically what additional information is needed, as in this review comment. Again, pause the video to read it. I briefly point out where citations are needed and offer a list of possible references the authors might use here. In writing a review, I try to point out where the paper might be improved, such as redrawing a poor figure or rephrasing passages. For example, in this comment, I suggest omission of an unnecessary phrase. So, even if the paper is rejected by the journal, the author will have some helpful suggestions to consider when revising for another journal. Refrain from making sarcastic, insulting, or otherwise unhelpful comments. You can criticize, but be courteous about it, as I was in the foregoing examples. And be clear in communicating your recommendation to the editor. Don't just say you like the paper. Explain how the work will move the field forward or lead to practical applications, as in this example. This paper provides some much-needed information about an important factor controlling the distribution and structure of coastal plant communities in the northern Gulf of Mexico. The paper also provides an important perspective on restoration practices and choice of plant material for such endeavors. Or, why you think the paper is not acceptable. For example, this paper has multiple problems, both in its scientific approach and writing. Mainly, the paper talks about relationships that are well-known instead of providing new insights. I've tried to point out where the authors need to make improvements. Their experimental approach is novel, and I would encourage the authors to consider rewriting the paper to showcase its utility, for example, as opposed to more traditional techniques. In any case, I cannot recommend this paper for publication in its present form. Usually, journals have specific boxes for the reviewer to check, except with minor or major revision or reject. Don't be afraid to reject. If the paper has a fatal flaw that cannot be rectified with a revision, recommend rejection. As I said earlier, participating in peer review is a great way to see how to improve your own papers and gain some insight into what journals expect. A final suggestion for students is to participate in lab meetings in which members review and discuss recently published papers in their field, their pros and cons. Such exercises can be highly informative and even fun. You'll learn how to critique a paper efficiently and quickly, and when you receive an invitation to review, you'll be confident in your response. By providing a thorough and unbiased review, you will help promote the dissemination of high-quality articles in your field of study. The review process is not perfect, but without it, we have no control over the communication of scientific findings. Thanks for watching, and don't forget to like this video and subscribe if you found this information helpful.