Peer Review Guidelines

This page outlines the most important points to focus on when peer reviewing another lab member’s work. This is only a rough guideline as the specific structure of the paper will highly depend on the requirements of the journal and the topic of your fellow researcher.

Important to keep in mind is that the goal of the internal peer review process is to assist your lab member in improving their paper, rather than judging or criticizing their work.

Questions Linked to Specific Sections of the Paper

Abstract

  • Is the abstract comprehensive (i.e., addressing context, content, and conclusion)?
  • Is the abstract understandable to an outsider with no knowledge of the field?
  • Is the abstract interesting/stimulating – an invitation to read the paper?

(see here Nature’s recommendations for writing an abstract)

Introduction

  • Outstanding problem in the field well explained?
  • Clear link between existing problem in the field and the specific question of this paper?
  • Is it clear why this paper matters?

Methods

  • Logical step from research problem to methodological approach clear?
  • Any steps in the methods difficult to understand – or seem erroneous?
  • Is the design understandable by looking only at the illustration (refer them to the figures section of wiki otherwise)?

Results

  • Includes summary of methods? Results understandable without reading methods section?
  • Clear link between results and initial research question?
  • Figures clear and comprehensive?

Discussion

  • Findings adequately summarized and discussed in relation to previous relevant studies?
  • Limitations of the finding(s) well addressed?
  • Is it clear how this study advances our knowledge? ‘Meaning’ of the study clear?
  • Bonus: smart ‘take home message’ extending beyond this specific paper?

General

Writing

  • Sentences are clear and readable?
  • Any examples where the reader may stumble or get lost?
  • Other comments about writing?

Figures

  • Figures tell the whole story – without being too dense?
  • Colour-concept mapping intuitive and consistent?
  • Other comments about figures?

If you have a lot of comments for this section, you can nudge your lab mate to the figures section of this wiki.

Interpretation

  • Adequate statement of study importance without overselling or hype?
  • Other comments about interpretation?