如何做peer review.pdf

How to write a peer review Matt Ayres, Dec 2006 (Jan 2009) The primary literature, which is arguably the backbone of scientific knowledge, is defined by the peer review process. Many of us contribute as much to science by serving as reviewers and editors as by publishing our own papers. However, few of us have received explicit training in how to efficiently write effective reviews. The scientific community would probably benefit from more structured consideration of the theory and practice of reviewing papers. This is an effort to make progress. I encourage comments, critiques, and additions. I encourage anyone to borrow and build on what is here, and to press their colleagues and mentors to cultivate the development of our skills as reviewers. A paper review should be a clear, efficient persuasive argument directed at (1) the editor, who will be making a decision on the paper, and (2) the authors. Start the review with a brief paragraph that clearly indicates your judgement regarding the fate of the manuscript (typically reject, major revisions and possibly accept, or minor revisions followed by publication). If you recommend rejection, mention another journal where it might be appropriate and/or indicate what would be needed to make it publishable (e.g., different analyses, two more years of data, a proper experiment, etc.). Follow the summary paragraph with an elaboration of each general criticism (typically 2-5 points in my reviews). Make these first two sections easy for the editor to understand, evaluate, and briefly paraphrase. Follow this with detailed comments that are more minor and which typically reference particular lines or paragraphs. I often label these three sections as: “Overview”, “General comments”, and “Detailed comments”. Things to consider in developing your opinion If what the authors say is true, is it interesting and appropriate for the journal? Are the conclusi