How to get into the peer reviewer’s mindset?

Learn to think like a peer reviewer

If you are about to perform a peer review for the first time, you may notice something unexpected. Reading a manuscript as a reviewer feels very different from reading it as an author. Even if you have published before, the shift in mindset can take time.

As an author, you are close to the work. You know what you meant to say, why certain choices were made, and where the paper is headed. As a reviewer, your role changes. You are no longer defending the work. You are assessing it on behalf of the scholarly community, while also helping the author make it stronger. Thinking like a peer reviewer is not about being critical for the sake of it. It is about being constructive, fair, and purposeful.

Shift from ownership to stewardship

One of the biggest mental shifts is letting go of ownership. As a reviewer, the manuscript is not your work, and it is not your responsibility to rewrite it in your own image. Instead, think of yourself as a steward of quality. Your job is to ask whether the research is clear, sound, and meaningful to the journal’s audience. When something does not work, the question is not, “How would I do this?” but “What does the author need to clarify, justify, or improve for readers to understand and trust this work?” This mindset keeps feedback focused on the manuscript’s goals rather than personal preferences.

Read for clarity, not intention

Authors often read their own work with intention in mind. Reviewers read for clarity. That difference matters. When you review a manuscript, assume you know only what is on the page. If a method is implied but not explained, or a conclusion feels obvious to the author but not to you, that gap is worth flagging. This is not a failure on your part as a reader. It is valuable feedback for the author. A helpful reviewer response might sound like, “I may be missing something here, but I struggled to understand how this variable was measured.” This kind of comment invites improvement without assigning blame.

Evaluate the argument, not just the topic

Reviewers sometimes focus heavily on whether they personally find the topic interesting. However, an experienced reviewer knows to looks beyond that. Ask yourself whether the research question is well defined, whether the argument develops logically, and whether the conclusions follow from the evidence presented. Even if the topic is not your primary area of interest, you can still assess whether the manuscript does what it claims to do. This approach also helps avoid overly subjective judgments. You are not deciding if you like the paper. You are assessing whether it works.

Be critical and kind at the same time

Constructive peer review balances honesty with respect. Pointing out weaknesses is part of the role, but how you frame those comments matters. Instead of listing everything that is wrong, focus on what would most improve the manuscript if addressed. When possible, explain why an issue matters. For example, noting that a discussion section feels brief would be more helpful when paired with how expanding it could strengthen the manuscript’s  contribution. Remember that there is a person on the other side of your review. Clear, calm language helps authors hear your feedback without feeling dismissed or discouraged.

Prioritize! Separate major issues from minor ones

Not all feedback carries the same weight. Thinking like a reviewer means prioritizing. Major issues affect the validity, clarity, or contribution of the work. Minor issues involve wording, formatting, or small inconsistencies. When these are shared together without structure, authors can feel overwhelmed or unsure about where to focus. Organizing your comments, even informally, signals that you have read the manuscript carefully and are guiding the author toward meaningful revision.

Think of peer review as a conversation, not a verdict

Peer review is often presented as a gatekeeping process, but in practice, it works best as a conversation. Your comments are part of an ongoing exchange between reviewers, editors, and authors. Approach each manuscript with curiosity rather than suspicion. Ask questions where things are unclear. Acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses. When you recommend changes, frame them as opportunities to improve the work rather than conditions to be met. This mindset not only helps authors. It also makes reviewing more rewarding and sustainable for you.

Grow into the reviewer role

No one starts out as a perfect reviewer. With each manuscript, you will become better at spotting patterns, articulating feedback, and judging what matters most. Thinking like a peer reviewer is about practice and perspective. You are there to support good research and help authors communicate more clearly. When you approach reviews with care and intention, your feedback becomes something authors can genuinely use, even when it is tough. That is when peer review does its best work.