While your first thought may be, "I don’t have time for this," reviewing manuscripts can be a great opportunity. Reviewers get an early view of what’s happening in their fields, better insight into how the review process works and a chance to network, all of which can foster your career, says Rose Sokol-Chang, PhD, publisher of APA journals.
Potential reviewers land on the radar of journal editors in a variety of ways: They may have recently landed a tenure-track position, been lead author on a standout paper or even given a compelling talk at a conference.
But how, exactly, does a reviewer approach the manuscript-review process? Here are 10 keys from editors of APA journals to guide you:
1: Get to know the review format
At its core, a manuscript review is made up of three sections:
- The rating form. The editor will provide you a form for rating the manuscript on a predetermined list of attributes that will lead you to answer the central question: Do you think this journal should publish the manuscript?
- A note to the authors. This section—usually one to two pages—constitutes the bulk of the review. It summarizes the manuscript’s main points and includes general comments about the paper’s strengths and weaknesses. It also provides the authors with constructive feedback as well as a road map for arriving at the best possible version of their article.
- A note to the editor. This brief text conveys confidential comments to be read only by the journal editor, including whether any element of the paper is beyond the reviewer’s area of expertise.
2: Familiarize yourself with the journal
After you have read the manuscript—and before you start writing—scour the journal and pay attention to how the articles are presented. Take note of the formatting, the order of the sections and the level of detail expected in the articles. Be sure that you have a clear understanding of the journal’s intended audience. Editors will often give you a list of instructions for your review as well. Tailor your review precisely to fit that journal. Also, find out the journal’s policy regarding reviewer anonymity. Some journals keep both the authors and the reviewers anonymous, while others give both parties the option to remain anonymous.
3: Know what to look for
Many journals provide reviewers with criteria for evaluating each section of a manuscript. In general, however, ask yourself if the article meets the following key benchmarks:
- Overall, it makes a meaningful contribution to the field.
- The science underlying the main idea is strong.
- There are no significant gaps in the cited literature.
- The results have not been previously published.
- The research design is appropriate.
- The right kinds of participants were used.
- The sample size was adequate.
- The correct statistics were used.
- The interpretation of the data makes sense.
- The findings are important and interesting to the journal’s readers.
- The methods are explained well enough that the experiments can be replicated.
- The discussion section intgrates the findings with relevant theory rather than simply rehashing the introduction.
- The writing is high quality.
In certain situations, some of these attributes may have an outsize impact. For example, a small sample size in a study performed with a difficult-to-study population, such as centenarians, will be given more leniency than a similar study using a small pool of college undergraduates as subjects. "Innovation and novelty need to be recognized," says Antonia Abbey, PhD, editor of Psychology of Violence.
4: Accept, reject or revise
At the end of your process, you will recommend whether the journal should accept the manuscript as is, reject it outright or ask the authors to revise and resubmit the article. Unless you accept the manuscript as is—an extremely rare decision—you need to suggest ways to improve the paper for resubmission.
You also may choose to weigh in on whether the article would be a better fit for another publication. "The manuscript might be really good," Sokol-Chang says, "but perhaps not for that particular journal." An example would be if you’re reviewing a very technical manuscript for a broad journal such as American Psychologist, which focuses on major developments across all of psychology. "In your note to the author, you should feel free to make suggestions about the best place to resubmit the manuscript," Sokol-Chang adds.
5: Map out a plan
Having a set process for conducting your review can make the experience less daunting. William Stoops, PhD, editor of Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, has developed a three-day process over the years that allows him to be deliberate and thoughtful without being rushed. On day one, he reads the manuscript through once without making comments or taking notes. "I sit at my desk, and I don’t have a pen in my hand; I don’t have anything. I just read it," he says. On day two, he marks up the manuscript with all his comments. On day three, he completes the rating form and types up his notes to the authors and the editor. Stoops came by this process through trial and error, and he says it may not suit everyone. "Everybody works differently," he says. "You just need to identify what works for you."
6: Know your statistics (and if you don’t, just say so)
Many reviewers struggle with statistics, says Richard Gilman, PhD, editor of School Psychology Quarterly. Statistical methods have become so sophisticated in recent years that he requires at least one of the two reviewers to be a researcher or clinician with a strong statistical background. "Sometimes, a reviewer knows that the statistics are beyond them," he says. "So, they have a hard time formulating what their issues are with the manuscript." In these cases, the reviewer can still offer valuable feedback. "If the paper’s not landing well, separate yourself from the statistics and point out where the difficulties are," Gilman adds. He also suggests that the reviewer include a note for the editor if he or she feels insider advice that the statistics need to be looked at by an expert.
7: Think big picture
While it’s important that details such as references are properly formatted, you’ve been asked to review the manuscript because of your subject-area expertise. So, dial back the copyediting and focus on the authors’ overall presentation of their research.
Sticking to the fundamentals will also keep your feedback to a manageable length, preferably no more than one to two single-spaced pages. "No one wants to read a four-page review," says Gilman. Besides, the small details will all change if the manuscript goes through substantive editing, he adds.
8: Meet your deadline
Many journals operate on a 30-day turnaround. Some APA journals even request that reviews be returned within 21 days. Editors take their turnaround time seriously, so be upfront about whether you have time to complete the review, which typically requires one to four hours. If you do have to decline, says Stoops, a quick "no" is preferred so the editor can move on to ask someone else. "A lot of invitations to review have an expiry date," Stoops adds. "For my journal, we give folks four days to say yes."
If you do accept the invitation, stick to the deadline. "Nothing is more frustrating than waiting on reviewers to get their comments back," says Gilman.
If something comes up that will prevent you from making your deadline, it’s important to communicate that to your editor. Gilman says he’s happy to oblige if a reviewer needs more time: "I just want them to be in touch."
9: Be honest and upfront
When an editor sends out a manuscript for review, he or she is doing so with a fair amount of trust. That means, among other things, that you cannot share the manuscript with anyone and that you must keep your thoughts about the unpublished manuscript to yourself.
The editor also expects the reviewer to report any potential conflicts of interest. The editor may not know, for example, that you reviewed the grant that funded the study. So, be sure to reveal that information and whether you feel you can be impartial. Often the authors’ names are not included, but if you become aware of conflicts, you should communicate with the editor. Also, if you don’t think you’re qualified to review a manuscript for any reason, communicate that to the editor, as well as what you would be interested in reviewing in the future.
"The editor may ask you to reconsider," Stoops says. "Or he may just say, ‘OK, I’ll keep you in mind if I see something that better fits your interests.’"
10: Be constructive and kind
You’ve gone through the manuscript carefully and you’re ready to bullet point every flaw. But remember to lead with the positive.
"No paper is so bad that you can’t provide some sort of positive comments," says Gilman. Of course, you also need to deliver critical feedback, says Mary Beth Kenkel, PhD, editor of Translational Issues in Psychological Science. "Reviewers need to think of themselves not as judges, but as educators helping authors to improve their manuscripts by giving very clear, constructive notes."
