PHD Discussions Logo

Ask, Learn and Accelerate in your PhD Research

Question Icon Post Your Answer

Question Icon

2 years ago in Peer Review By Kushi Gupta

What makes a high-quality, constructive peer review report?

I've been asked to review my first paper. I want to be helpful but don't know where to start. What should a good review include beyond just "accept" or "reject"? Is there a standard structure or set of criteria?

All Answers (1 Answers In All)

By Phoebe Answered 1 year ago

A great review is a balanced, specific, and constructive critique. Structure it as follows: 1) Brief Summary: Start with 2-3 sentences summarizing the paper's aim and findings in your own words, showing you understood it. 2) Major Comments: Address significance (is the contribution novel and important?), methodology (are the methods sound and properly described?), and validity of conclusions (do the results support the claims?). Be specific, cite line numbers, and suggest improvements. 3) Minor Comments: Note typos, unclear phrasing, or citation errors. 4) Overall Recommendation and Rationale: Clearly state "Accept," "Minor Revision," "Major Revision," or "Reject," and concisely explain why. Focus on the work, not the author. Your tone should be collegial. A good review leaves authors feeling they've received valuable guidance, even if the verdict is tough.

Your Answer