peer review this essay

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

What Is Peer Review and Why Is It Important?

It’s one of the major cornerstones of the academic process and critical to maintaining rigorous quality standards for research papers. Whichever side of the peer review process you’re on, we want to help you understand the steps involved.

This post is part of a series that provides practical information and resources for authors and editors.

Peer review – the evaluation of academic research by other experts in the same field – has been used by the scientific community as a method of ensuring novelty and quality of research for more than 300 years. It is a testament to the power of peer review that a scientific hypothesis or statement presented to the world is largely ignored by the scholarly community unless it is first published in a peer-reviewed journal.

It is also safe to say that peer review is a critical element of the scholarly publication process and one of the major cornerstones of the academic process. It acts as a filter, ensuring that research is properly verified before being published. And it arguably improves the quality of the research, as the rigorous review by like-minded experts helps to refine or emphasise key points and correct inadvertent errors.

Ideally, this process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and in turn reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views.

If you are a researcher, you will come across peer review many times in your career. But not every part of the process might be clear to you yet. So, let’s have a look together!

Types of Peer Review

Peer review comes in many different forms. With single-blind peer review , the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, while double-blind peer review , both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Then, there is open peer review , a term which offers more than one interpretation nowadays.

Open peer review can simply mean that reviewer and author identities are revealed to each other. It can also mean that a journal makes the reviewers’ reports and author replies of published papers publicly available (anonymized or not). The “open” in open peer review can even be a call for participation, where fellow researchers are invited to proactively comment on a freely accessible pre-print article. The latter two options are not yet widely used, but the Open Science movement, which strives for more transparency in scientific publishing, has been giving them a strong push over the last years.

If you are unsure about what kind of peer review a specific journal conducts, check out its instructions for authors and/or their editorial policy on the journal’s home page.

Why Should I Even Review?

To answer that question, many reviewers would probably reply that it simply is their “academic duty” – a natural part of academia, an important mechanism to monitor the quality of published research in their field. This is of course why the peer-review system was developed in the first place – by academia rather than the publishers – but there are also benefits.

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Besides a general interest in the field, reviewing also helps researchers keep up-to-date with the latest developments. They get to know about new research before everyone else does. It might help with their own research and/or stimulate new ideas. On top of that, reviewing builds relationships with prestigious journals and journal editors.

Clearly, reviewing is also crucial for the development of a scientific career, especially in the early stages. Relatively new services like Publons and ORCID Reviewer Recognition can support reviewers in getting credit for their efforts and making their contributions more visible to the wider community.

The Fundamentals of Reviewing

You have received an invitation to review? Before agreeing to do so, there are three pertinent questions you should ask yourself:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
• Do you have time to review the paper?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. of financial or personal nature)?

If you feel like you cannot handle the review for whatever reason, it is okay to decline. If you can think of a colleague who would be well suited for the topic, even better – suggest them to the journal’s editorial office.

But let’s assume that you have accepted the request. Here are some general things to keep in mind:

Please be aware that reviewer reports provide advice for editors to assist them in reaching a decision on a submitted paper. The final decision concerning a manuscript does not lie with you, but ultimately with the editor. It’s your expert guidance that is being sought.

Reviewing also needs to be conducted confidentially . The article you have been asked to review, including supplementary material, must never be disclosed to a third party. In the traditional single- or double-blind peer review process, your own anonymity will also be strictly preserved. Therefore, you should not communicate directly with the authors.

When writing a review, it is important to keep the journal’s guidelines in mind and to work along the building blocks of a manuscript (typically: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references, tables, figures).

After initial receipt of the manuscript, you will be asked to supply your feedback within a specified period (usually 2-4 weeks). If at some point you notice that you are running out of time, get in touch with the editorial office as soon as you can and ask whether an extension is possible.

Some More Advice from a Journal Editor

• Be critical and constructive. An editor will find it easier to overturn very critical, unconstructive comments than to overturn favourable comments.
• Justify and specify all criticisms. Make specific references to the text of the paper (use line numbers!) or to published literature. Vague criticisms are unhelpful.
• Don’t repeat information from the paper , for example, the title and authors names, as this information already appears elsewhere in the review form.
• Check the aims and scope. This will help ensure that your comments are in accordance with journal policy and can be found on its home page.
• Give a clear recommendation . Do not put “I will leave the decision to the editor” in your reply, unless you are genuinely unsure of your recommendation.
• Number your comments. This makes it easy for authors to easily refer to them.
• Be careful not to identify yourself. Check, for example, the file name of your report if you submit it as a Word file.

Sticking to these rules will make the author’s life and that of the editors much easier!

Explore new perspectives on peer review in this collection of blog posts published during Peer Review Week 2021

[Title image by AndreyPopov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as a Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

Poised For a Great Future! An Open Access Week Interview with Colleen Campbell

Exploring scholarly publishing: the complex journey towards open access, triumphs, tragedies and tribulations: an open access retrospective, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

Use of cookies

Lund University uses cookies to ensure that the website functions properly and to improve your experience.

Read more in our cookie policy

• AWELU contents
• Writing at university
• Different kinds of student texts
• Understanding instructions and stylesheets
• Understanding essay/exam questions

Peer review instructions

• Dealing with feedback
• Checklist for writers
• Research writing resources
• Administrative writing resources
• LU language policy
• Introduction
• What characterises academic writing?
• The heterogeneity of academic writing
• Three-part essays
• IMRaD essays
• How to get started on your response paper
• Student literature review
• Annotated bibliography
• Three versions of the RA
• Examples of specificity within disciplines
• Reviews (review articles and book reviews)
• Popular science writing
• Research posters
• Grant proposals
• Writing for Publication
• Salutations
• Structuring your email
• Direct and indirect approaches
• Useful email phrases
• Language tips for email writers
• Writing memos
• Meeting terminology
• The writing process
• Identifying your audience
• Using invention techniques
• Research question
• Thesis statement
• Developing reading strategies
• Taking notes
• Identifying language resources
• Choosing a writing tool
• Framing the text: Title and reference list
• Structure of the whole text
• Structuring the argument
• Structure of introductions
• Structure within sections of the text
• Structure within paragraphs
• Signposting the structure
• Using sources
• What needs to be revised?
• How to revise
• Many vs. much
• Other quantifiers
• Quantifiers in a table
• Miscellaneous quantifiers
• Adjectives and adverbs
• Capitalisation
• Sentence fragment
• Run-on sentences
• What or which?
• Singular noun phrases connected by "or"
• Singular noun phrases connected by "either/or"
• Connected singular and plural noun phrases
• Noun phrases conjoined by "and"
• Subjects containing "along with", "as well as", and "besides"
• Indefinite pronouns and agreement
• Sums of money and periods of time
• Words that indicate portions
• Uncountable nouns
• Dependent clauses and agreement
• Agreement with the right noun phrase
• Some important exceptions and words of advice
• Atypical nouns
• The major word classes
• The morphology of the major word classes
• Words and phrases
• Elements in the noun phrase
• Classes of nouns
• Determiners
• Elements in the verb phrase
• Classes of main verbs
• Auxiliary verbs
• Primary auxiliary verbs
• Modal auxiliary verbs
• Meanings of modal auxiliaries
• Marginal auxiliary verbs
• Time and tense
• Simple and progressive forms
• The perfect
• Active and passive voice
• Adjective phrases
• Adverb phrases
• Personal pronouns
• Dummy pronouns
• Possessive pronouns
• Interrogative pronouns
• Indefinite pronouns
• Quantifiers
• Prepositions and prepositional phrases
• More on adverbials
• The order of subjects and verbs
• Subject-Verb agreement
• Hyphen and dash
• English spelling rules
• Commonly confused words
• Differences between British and American spelling
• Vocabulary awareness
• Useful words and phrases
• Using abbreviations
• Register types
• Formal vs. informal
• DOs & DON'Ts
• General information on dictionary use
• Online dictionary resources
• What is a corpus?
• Examples of the usefulness of a corpus
• Using the World Wide Web as a corpus
• Online corpus resources
• Different kinds of sources
• The functions of references
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Reference accuracy
• Reference management tools
• Different kinds of reference styles
• Style format
• Elements of the reference list
• Documentary note style
• Writing acknowledgements
• What is academic integrity?
• Academic integrity and writing
• Academic integrity at LU
• Different kinds of plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• About Awelu

• Start here AWELU contents Student writing resources Research writing resources Administrative writing resources LU language policy
• Genres Introduction The Nature of Academic Writing Student writing genres Writing in Academic Genres Writing for Publication Writing for Administrative Purposes
• Writing The writing process Pre-writing stage Writing stage Rewriting stage
• Language Introduction Common problems and how to avoid them Selective mini grammar Coherence Punctuation Spelling Focus on vocabulary Register and style Dictionaries Corpora - resources for writer autonomy References
• Referencing Introduction Different kinds of sources The functions of references How to give references Reference accuracy Reference management tools Using a reference style Quick guides to reference styles Writing acknowledgements
• Academic integrity What is academic integrity? Academic integrity and writing Academic integrity at LU Plagiarism

The following guidelines are intended to be used as a starting point for peer-group discussions of texts. Most of the exercises can also be used on your own text if you are working alone.

Please note that:

• Student peer reviewers are usually not expected to correct mistakes, but rather to identify passages that need revision and to discuss with the writer what kind(s) of problem they have identified.
• If you have been asked to peer review another student's text as part of course work, check the instructions that you have received, as there may be other aspects that need to be taken into consideration than the ones listed below.
• Reading and understanding instructions.

Important: Stay focused and keep a professional tone in all peer reviewing. This means avoiding derogatory remarks and irony, as well as praise that does not help the writer. In all comments you give,

• be specific, for instance by giving examples
• pose questions when the text is unclear rather than just stating that it is unclear
• aim to help the writer but do not try to write the paper for them

How to conduct a peer review

In order to get an overview of the text you have been asked to review, read it through, marking only things that stand out and that you will take a closer look at later on. Then go through the text more carefully, focusing on the issues listed below.

• Is there a clear focus in the text? If not, mark passages that seem irrelevant to the topic and passages that need to be clarified.
• For an essay to be focused, it usually needs to have a clearly identified research question . If you cannot identify what the essay sets out to investigate/discuss, comment on this.
• Focused essays also present an argument. If there is no thesis statement (claim), ask the writer what point they wish to make in their text.

For further information about the terms research question and thesis statement , see

• Research questions and thesis statements
• Does the overall structure of the text work? If not, what changes would you suggest?
• Are the paragraphs well structured (are there topic sentences , for instance)? If paragraph structure is a recurring problem in the text, comment on one or two paragraphs in detail to help the writer revise his or her text.

For further information about topic sentences and paragrpah structure, see

• Structure within paragraphs.
• Why is this important?
• How is this related to your argument?
• Could you give any examples of this?
• Could you clarify this?

For some ideas on how to think about arguments in essays, see this video:

• Structuring an argument

Language: Word choice and grammar

Although it is usually not the peer reviewer's task to mark or correct language errors in the text, the following can help you as you review your peers' texts.

• Are any words overused or 'flat' in the sense that they do not add anything to the argument?
• If the writer is prone to repetitiveness, mark words that recur frequently
• Mark informal language
• What about punctuation?
• Are there any run-on sentences or sentence fragments?

Referencing

If the text draws on previous research, comment on the following:

• Are the sources that have been used relevant for the topic and for the assignment?
• Does the writer make a clear distinction between previous research and what is new (this is, can you distinguish the writer's ideas from what the writer has based on previous research?)
• Have sources been referred to according to instructions that the writer has received?

For information on how to use sources and why, see

• The function of references

Summing up: Strengths and weaknesses

To help the writer of the text you have reviewed, try to sum up your comments in a few sentences. Focus on the following:

• What are the strengths of the text you have read?
• What aspects of the writer's text need more work?

In the online book Writing in English at University: A Guide for Second Language Writers , pp. 27-29, you will find some further instructions and some tips on how to present your feedback.

Peer-reviewing guides for specific stages of the writing process

The following advice can be used as a starting point for reviews of work-in-progress texts. 

Remember that texts look different in different academic fields. The guidelines below focus on general stages of writing that many students come across while working on essays and degree projects.

Peer reviewing an essay/project proposal

Preliminary title    .

• Is the preliminary essay title informative?
• Is the title clear or potentially ambiguous (if the latter, discuss whether this is a good thing or not)

Research question and thesis statement

Note that the thesis statement will be preliminary at this early stage of the writing process.

• Is there a clearly articulated research question and a thesis statement or would you like the essay writer to clarify what will be investigated and what claims will be made?

Outline of essay structure    

• Discuss the proposed structure
• Does the proposed structure seem to be the best structure for the project, or would you like to propose another structure?

Preliminary sources    

• What kinds of sources has the writer located at this stage?
• Are there any kinds of sources that you would have expected, but that have not been listed?

Summing up and self-reflection

• Highlight something in the essay/project proposal that is good and something that may need to be clarified/developed.
• What have you learned by reading other students' essay/project proposals, and in what way has your own project developed from your discussions?

Peer reviewing an introduction section

Consider the questions below as your review your peers' texts.

Contents and structure

• Does the introduction present the topic of the essay/project in a clear way?
• Is there an identifiable research question and a thesis statement ?
• Does the introduction offer an outline of the essay (a blueprint)?
• Do you lack any crucial information in the introduction?

If the writer has been instructed to base their introduction on the CARS model , consider the following as well:

• Does your Introduction follow CARS?

Readability

• Sentence level: Are there sentences that are difficult to follow?
• Paragraph level: Are there any paragraphs that are difficult to understand? Is the ordering of paragraphs good? What about topic sentences and development within each paragraph ?
• Are there any words that are overused or ‘flat’ in the sense that they do not add anything to the argument?
• Are there terms that need to be introduced?
• What about punctuation ?
• Are there any sentences that need to be rephrased - any comma splices (run-on sentences) or sentence fragments ?
• Highlight something in the introduction that is good and something that may need to be clarified/developed.
• What have you learned and in what way has your own project developed from peer reviewing Introductions?

Peer reviewing paragraphs

For information about paragraph writing, see

Revise paragraphs for structure and argument

The following exercise works well as a peer-review exercise of some part of a text, and you can also use it to check your own work-in-progress texts.

• Read through the paragraph. Does it contain a clear topic sentence and some development in the form of supporting sentences? If not, how can the paragraph structure be strengthened?
• If any sources have been used, is it clear to the reader what parts of the paragraph refer to the source(s) and what parts are the writer’s own thoughts and words? If needed, how can the writer’s voice be strengthened and how can the reference(s) to other people’s thoughts be made more clear?

Revise a paragraph at sentence level

Read through the paragraph and then consider it from the following perspectives:

• Is the sentence structure awkward?
• Are you trying to say too much in one sentence?
• Are the sentences in your paragraph not in a logical order?
• Sentence structure variety: Are any successive sentences structured in exactly the same way (for instance are there several sentences in a row starting with subject + verb or with a prepositional phrase)? If that is the case, try to see if you can rephrase in order to create variety.
• Choice of words: Are there any words in the paragraph that might need revision (meaning / phrasing / form)? Is there unnecessary repetition?
• Style and language: Are there any language errors (subject-verb agreement, spelling, genitive case, capitalization, unclear use of pronouns)? What about style (contracted forms, informal words/phrases, jargon/pompous language)?

Peer reviewing work-in-progress texts

Peer reviewing is useful throughout the writing process. Use the following questions as starting points for peer discussions of work in progress. Remember that the texts you read are not finished texts; your task as a peer reviewer is to help the writer sharpen her or his argument and improve her or his text. Importantly, by reviewing other writers’ texts, you will train your own analytical abilities and you will encounter different ways of structuring a paper, of presenting facts and arguments, etc.

The following starting points are not detailed instructions but a list of issues that are important to consider throughout the writing process.

Big-picture concerns

• Argument: Is the argument clearly stated or does the writer need to provide more information or develop his/her argument in some direction?
• Overall level (is the overall structure clear to you as a reader?)
• Section level (do the sections follow in a logical sequence and are there informative headings and transitions between sections?)
• Paragraph level (what about topic sentences, for instance?)
• Evidence: Does the writer back up their claims?
• Will the writer need to find more evidence / sources to substantiate their claims?
• How are sources used?
• Does the writer follow the stipulated reference style?

Local concerns

• Does the writer use effective transitions between paragraphs or does the text consist of separate chunks of text? If the latter, highlight gaps where transitional devices are needed.
• Word choice (any terms than need to be explained or defined / any jargon or unnecessary words?)
• Spelling mistakes / grammatical mistakes?
• Punctuation issues?
• What is the greatest strength of the draft you have read?
• What does the writer need to work on?
• What have you learned and in what way has your own project developed from peer reviewing?