OriginalThe manuscript by Smith et al. has several flaws in the logic of the experiments…

Revised optionsI did not understand the logic of the experiments…The manuscript by Smith et al. seems to have several flaws in the logic of the experiments…

Be punctualRead the title and abstract as soon as you receive a new manuscript to review. Reviews are expected to be completed within 10 days. If you cannot review the paper due to a conflict of interest or lack of expertise, notify the Associate Editor promptly so

will be unavailable to handle new manuscripts due to other commitments, enter unavailability dates into your online profile so that JLR doesn’t bother you with new requests. If your first glance at the title and abstract suggest that the work is highly unlikely to provide the kind of conceptual or methodological advance expected atJLR, please find time to read the paper in full within 48 hours; if your initial concerns hold true for the full manuscript, you can return a brief report focusing on the major flaws rather than enumerating all relevant technical concerns.

Be specificJust like the manuscript you’re evaluating, your review should not contain unsupported assertions. Explain positive or negative feedback with specific details.Consider these examples, that lack such detail:

A large portion of this work, on the related protein from the rat, has already been published elsewhere.Appropriate controls are not included.The manuscript by Smith et al. has several flaws in the logic of the experiments.This is great.

raised: Include details of relevant references. What controls are missing? What are the flaws in the experimental design? These details will help the editors or authors determine whether (or how) your concerns can be resolved through revision. Even when you are being complimentary, as in the last case, the editor will not know what you think is important or impactful about this study. This could result in more weight being placed on the report of a negative referee and rejection of an exciting study. These examples serve as a more specific and useful framework:

I am concerned that citations X, Y and Z limit the conceptual advance of this study.I did not see controls testing for non-specific aggregation in Figure 2; this should be ruled out.

Writing reviews with rigor and respect: a practical guide

As a JLR referee, you uphold the journal’s high standards for rigorous and timely, yet fair and collegial, peer review.The editors at JLR rely on reviewers’ thorough assessments to ensure that all of the papers published in the journal will stand the test of time. Thoughtful manuscript assessments help authors come away from the review process with constructive feedback, even if the paper is not accepted.

Scientists who have been through the review process as authors know in principle what kind of information is most helpful and what common traps can derail a productive review. This guide builds from real referee comments to provide practical examples of how to communicate the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript to both editors and authors without falling into these traps.

Rules of review

Be respectfulWhether your assessment of a manuscript is favorable or not,

this has no place at JLR. Keep in mind how you would like to be treated if the situation was reversed.

Insults such as the ‘inappropriate’ examples below do not advance the review process, and actually may limit the impact of your input since they raise questions about your objectivity. The underlying concerns maybe valid, but need to be expressed appropriately, as in the revised examples.

InappropriateThis is the worst manuscript I have read in years.This paper is based on totally incorrect assumptions and consequently all of the conclusions are irrelevant.It is as far from biological reality as one can get.The authors seem to have only a rudimentary understanding of statistics.

AppropriateI am not convinced this manuscript makes a strong contribution to the literature.The manuscript does not seem to account for important conceptual advances such as...I am concerned about the physiological relevance of these results.The statistical tests applied are not appropriate for the experimental design.

You can also set a productive tone for the review by explaining your experience reading the paper, rather than making pro-nouncements, as shown in the following examples. This leaves the door open for scientific exchange, which is especially useful if an aspect of the manuscript was simply poorly described or in the rare case where you genuinely missed or misunderstood something.

www.jlr.org

The introduction is too concise – readers need to understand how protein X was initially discovered in relation to process Y.There is a jump in going from the results showing X toconcluding Y; please expand to explain how you ruled out other possible explanations like A, B and C.

progression between paragraphs was unclear.The authors seem to have described the results in the order they were collected, but it would be more useful to organize them into cohesive themes.

Be knowledgeableStay informed about JLR’s editorial policies related to scope include only what is revenant to JLR policies. Current information can be found on our Instructions to Authors page, the Editorial Policies page. Be sure to check back periodically to get the most recent updates. Consistent enforcement of these policies ensures that all papers published in JLR meet the same high standards.

Be in touchIf you’re facing a referee challenge that you’re not sure how to address, let us know! Contact your Associate Editor about specific manuscripts you’re reviewing, or email jlr@asbmb.org for more general questions.

Be honestAs an author, you know it’s disappointing when a paper is rejected. Therefore, as a referee, it might seem like a good idea to try to spare an author from disappointment by concealing your negative feedback about their work, as in this example:

Comments to the author: This manuscript by Smith et al. describes the cloning and sequencing of a genomic DNA from the bacteria ... The work is solid, well executed and the manuscript is succinct. This manuscript would be much improved if more information on the generation of functional transcripts were included.

Comments to the editor: This is a highly descriptive exercise with a minimum of mechanism. Reject.

Here the comments to the author focus strictly on describing

advance provided by the work, which is saved for the confidential comments to the editor.However, the lack of negative feedback can lead the authors to think this is a positive report, creating its own disappointment when the paper is rejected.

Authors may wonder what confidential remarks might have derailed their publication and be limited in their ability to revise the paper to address any meaningful concerns. Be clear in your comments to authors about any shortcomings of the work, as shown in this revision:

Comments to the author: This manuscript by Smith et al. describes the cloning and sequencing of a genomic DNA from the bacteria ... The work is technically sound and the paper clearly written. The manuscript would be strengthened by more information on the generation of functional transcripts. Moreover, I am concerned that the study is more descriptive than mechanistic in focus, which seems like a poor fit for this particular journal.

Be a literary criticA strong paper should explain relevant background information in a manner accessible to the readership of the journal, indicate what open question(s) the research project was intending to answer, and describe how the results were interpreted and what other explanations should be considered. Clarity and logical progression from one idea to the next is more important than beautiful prose; indeed, simple language can often be very compelling if the message is clear. Check the text, including the title and ab-stract, and provide comments to the author if improvements are necessary. Consider the examples below to help guide your feedback.

Less usefulThe writing is terrible.The authors should hire an editing service.Very good manuscript but it is too bulky; it needs to be reduced to about half of its current size.

More appropriateI thought the introduction could have been cut in half; including three separate paragraphs on speculation about protein X distracted from the main story.

www.jlr.org