What should I do if I receive an invitation to review an article that falls outside of my expertise? Should I accept the invitation and make the best of it?
No, decline the invitation. Editors do not always have sufficient detail on everyone they invite to review and they can make mistakes. If you are still interested in reviewing for that journal, let the Editor know when you decline the invitation. Then, update keywords associated with your account in their peer review site so that the Editor can better match you to articles in your field in the future.
Is there a way to know when your "ready" to peer review? What if you are unsure as a grad student?
If you are interested in reviewing, but uncomfortable completing a review yourself and do receive an invitation to review, you should ask your supervisor or a senior colleague to co-review with you. Discuss with the editor prior to agreeing to review. The co-reviewer should check the review prior to submission of the review.
How many reviewers normally involved in the process? Do you entirely depend on the opinions of the first reviewer?
Most journals require comments from a minimum of two reviewers. All reviewer comments are taken into consideration in order for an editor to make a decision on an article.
Should I consider the journal Impact Factor or quality when I review an article? Meaning, should I be very strict or easy based on the journal quality?
You should consider content that is published in the journal and if the article you are reviewing does not seem to be a good fit in terms of quality, include this in your comments to the Editor. The Editor is responsible for determining if the paper is appropriate for publication in the journal.
What if I feel confident reviewing parts of a study but not the rest? Would it be ok to ask the editor to assign another reviewer for the part I can’t review?
Yes. In your comments to the editor, explain what parts you did evaluate and which parts you did not. Also, you can recommend if a person with a specific background should be sought as an additional reviewer. For example, you may recommend a biostatistician to review the statistics used in the article.
What if I recognize the article and realize that I know the author?
Tell the Editor immediately. If the journal conducts double-blind peer review, you may need to be assigned to a different article.
Do you expect reviewers to check the references?
While not expected that all references are checked, if you do notice a reference that doesn’t seem relevant to the topic, please include this in your comments. Also, if you do notice a high number of references are 5 years are older, note this as well. It is important that authors have included the most up-to-date references and references that are relevant to the topic.
I think a reviewer’s job is to evaluate the scientific quality of a paper. So, as a reviewer, how concerned should I be with language quality, journal formatting, etc.?
Yes, the main job of a reviewer is to evaluate the scientific quality. If there are concerns with the language quality, journal formatting, or other similar issues, these can be noted in your comments. However, the focus of the review should be on the scientific quality, therefore exhaustive comments regarding items like language quality are not necessary.
On average, how long should a review be to be considered acceptable?
A review should be long enough to provide constructive, actionable feedback for the authors. A short 1-2 sentence summary shows to the editor you understand the content of the paper. You can organize the review by the sections of the paper or by Major vs. Minor comments. It is generally preferred that comments are listed or bulleted rather than written in paragraph form. This makes it easier for editors and authors to look at the comments and respond to them. It is easiest for editors and authors if comments are included in a word file or pasted directly as comments in the reviewer form. You can refer to specific page numbers and lines in the PDF version of the article if you want to point out specific parts of the text that need to be addressed by the authors.
Given the subjective nature of social science research and the breadth of methodological perspectives, how can peer reviewers maintain or ensure a highly objective stance in reviewing (especially in qualitative articles)?
Consider the methods used in similar studies. How does this study compare? Were the methods as rigorous? Do the methods seem appropriate for the research question? Were the methods sufficient to support the findings? Do your best to evaluate the article relative to others like it. In your comments to the authors, you can ask for more details on the methods and why they were appropriate for the study. If you have remaining concerns about the methodological rigor of the study, please say so in your comments to the editor.
What do you think when a study reveals insignificant results? Some reviewers think they do not contribute to the literature.
If the contribution made by the article does not appear significant, you can include this in your comments to the editor. The level of significance is taken into consideration by the editor when they make a decision.
Sometimes reviewers ask authors to cite their work directly or indirectly merely to get citations. How do journals look at this?
Reviewers should not ask authors to cite the reviewers’ own work unless it is absolutely necessary. Editors notice when reviewers make these requests of authors and might remove these comments from decision letters or add additional language next to your comments that lets the authors know your recommendation is optional. You might not be invited to review again if an editor notices you are asking authors to cite your work without a strong reason.
About the "confidential comments to the editor", what is optimal of use for the section?
This section should be used for any comments you would like to share directly with the editor and are not relevant for the authors. Authors should see comments that are constructive and actionable. Comments regarding opinions on the contribution or novelty, for example, should be shared with the editor as they help the editor make a decision.
Under what circumstances would an editor rescind/discount a reviewer’s evaluation of an article?
Editors rarely rescind or entirely discount reviews. One example of when this may happen is if a reviewer initially agreed to review an article based on the abstract, realized upon receiving the full article that the material was outside of their area of expertise, and indicated in their evaluation form that they did not feel qualified to review the article. In cases where an editor thinks a qualified reviewer may have been overly critical of an article, they may look for additional reviewers in order to get a more well-rounded perspective, but they are unlikely to rescind the critical review.
Do journals rate and record the reviewers in their database based on the quality of review?
Journal editors do have the option to rate reviewers based on the quality of their review and timeliness. Editors greatly value reviewers who provide thoughtful feedback for authors and return their comments in a timely manner.
Do I receive any benefits for reviewing for a Sage Journal?
Please visit the Sage Reviewer Rewards page on the Reviewer Gateway for details on the rewards package we offer our reviewers.