This page provides a template example for how you can complete a journal-style peer review of a paper.

The convention I’ve used in the template below is that text in {brackets} indicates essentially blanks to be filled in; the text within each set of brackets describes what kind of information should go there.

The opening paragraph gives a general summary of the paper topic and the major general strengths and weaknesses. It is useful to start this with a brief description of what you think the topic is, so the author(s) can tell if the overall idea of the paper is coming through (sometimes reviewers misunderstand the entire point of a paper; it helps the rest of the review make sense if we begin by making clear what we think the goals of the paper are). The rest of the paragraph is a “compliment sandwich” - something nice, some constructive criticism, and then something else nice. It may seem silly and obvious, but it does work.

After the opening paragraph, give bullet points or a numbered list with specific comments or questions. Provide concrete suggestions for improvement, as much as possible. You might want to suggest other behavior genetics topics or methods to include. Do not bother correcting spelling/grammar, unless there’s something that will be very hard for the author to spot.

Remember to offer constructive criticism. Review others as you would like to be reviewed.

Template

Manuscript number: HBG-{year}-{###}

The manuscript number will be the file name of the manuscript. I assign manuscript numbers randomly; it is how I keep track of the identity of the paper, since the peer review is anonymous.

Title: {title of the paper}

This paper {describe the paper topic}.

The paper does a good job of {give a general strength of the paper, e.g. interesting, broad coverage, deep coverage of a specific topic, easy to understand, etc.}.

The primary way to improve this paper would be to {give your most general recommendation, e.g. edit spelling and grammar, provide a summary and possible future directions for research at the end, explain technical terms more clearly, focus on a more narrow field of research, include more details, include more citations/references, focus on a broader topic, discuss ethics and societal implications, reorganize text to improve flow, etc.}.

The author clearly put a lot of effort in to {one more strength to finish the “completment sandwich”}.

Below are some examples of the kinds of content and level of detail that is helpful to include in the specific comments after the introductory/overview paragraph.
  • The statement on page 2, “The heritability of the disorder is…” needs a citation.
  • The sentence on page 3, “However, researchers have also seen that sex differences…” is difficult to understand. I interpreted it to mean {how you read it, so the author has a better idea of how it’s being (mis)interpreted}.
  • The organization is difficult to follow. You might want to discuss problems of diagnosis before problems of treatment.
  • On page 6, second paragraph, you use the word “affect” when I think you mean “effect”.
  • You talk a lot about the heritability of the outcome. Have any specific genes been found that are associated with it?
  • On page 9, you mention “methylation”, but do not define it for the reader.

Home: Table of Contents