Receiving your first peer review invitation is a notable moment. It means an editor, having seen your published work or your professional profile, believes that you have the expertise to evaluate someone else’s research. That is worth recognizing, even if your first instinct is to wonder whether you are ready to be a peer reviewer. 

Most researchers feel underprepared for their first review. That is normal. Peer review is not formally taught in most doctoral programs. In this post, we walk you through the full arc of a peer review from invitation to submitted report, with useful tips at each step. These tips are useful for both new/first-time and experienced peer reviewers. 

Step 1: Decide whether to accept 

Before you accept an invitation to peer review, read the invitation carefully first. It will usually include the manuscript title and abstract, the journal name, and the requested deadline. Take a few minutes with this information before you commit. 

Ask yourself three questions:  

• Is this manuscript within my area of expertise?  

• Do I have enough time to do a thorough job before the deadline?  

• Do I have any conflicts of interest with the authors, institution, or content?  

The guidelines for peer reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics are a useful reference point if you are unsure about how to assess a potential conflict of interest. 

If your answer to the first two questions above is “yes” and “no” for the third, accept the review. Communicate any issues, such as a minor conflict or a deadline you can’t meet, and share this with the editor promptly. Most editors would far rather accommodate a good reviewer than lose one.  

Step 2: Familiarize yourself with the journal’s expectations 

Once you accept the peer review invitation, do not read the manuscript immediately. Reviewing the journal’s aims and scope and its guidelines for reviewers. Most journals provide specific instructions for peer reviewers about what to evaluate and how to structure the peer review report. 

Knowing what the journal expects before you start your peer review will help you evaluate the manuscript against the expected criteria from the beginning. In some cases, journals ask reviewers to comment on specific elements such as statistical reporting standards, data availability, and ethical approval, and knowing this would be of great help to you. 

Step 3: Do a first read for the big picture 

Read the manuscript from beginning to end without stopping to annotate. The goal of this first pass is to get a sense of the study before you start evaluating any part of it in detail. Resist the urge to start writing comments as you go; save that for the next read. 

• After this first pass, ask yourself:  

• What is the paper claiming to contribute?  

• Does the study design match the research question?  

• Do the results support the conclusions?  

• Can I identify any obvious problems with scope, coherence, or logic?  

Write a few notes for yourself, summarizing your initial impressions. These will anchor your detailed assessment during and after the next read. 

Related Reading: 

• 10 Tips for Responding to Peer Review Comments
• How To Read A Manuscript For Peer Review: A Structured Approach 

Step 4: Do a second, detailed read 

Your second read is where the actual evaluation happens. Work through each section deliberately, keeping the journal’s reviewer guidelines in mind. This is where you keep a document open alongside the manuscript, noting page or section numbers as you go. 

In the Introduction section, check whether the research question is stated clearly and whether the rationale for the study is convincing. In the Methods, ask whether the study could be reproduced from the information provided and whether the design is appropriate for the question being asked. In the Results, check whether what is reported maps clearly onto what the methods described. In the Discussion and Conclusion, ask whether the conclusions align with the data, or whether the authors are claiming more than their evidence warrants. 

Keep noting your thoughts, feedback, and questions for each part as you go. Recording your observations as you encounter them, rather than trying to reconstruct them from memory at the end, helps you write your report in a more organized manner. 

Step 5: Think about your recommendation 

At the end of your review, be clear about your recommendation to the journal editor: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject. Being clear about this first will help you write a report that is direct and useful. 

Your recommendation should be backed by your notes and observations about the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of the study, not by your own feelings or opinions. Do not let concern about being too harsh push you toward a more positive recommendation than the manuscript deserves, and do not let uncertainty about your own role push you toward rejection when the problems are fixable. Your job is to give an honest, expert assessment, and at this stage of your career, your expert assessment is exactly what the editor invited. 

Step 6: Write your report 

A peer review report typically contains two parts: a summary for the editor, which may be confidential, and comments for the authors. The former includes your overall assessment and recommendation. Here, you can be direct, because the editor needs to know your position clearly and without ambiguity. You can also share your concerns confidentially with the editor in this part of your report. 

The comments for the authors should start with a brief summary of the paper’s strengths and its main weaknesses. You can then work through your specific concerns, organized from most to least significant. Each concern should be clearly described, with reference to the relevant section of the manuscript, and where possible, a suggestion for how it could be addressed. 

Step 7: Review your report before submitting 

Before you submit your peer review report, read your comments and feedback once again. Ensure that your tone is professional and constructive throughout; every major concern is clearly explained and referenced, and nothing in your comments reveals your identity if the review is blind. Ensure that your recommendation is consistent with the concerns you have raised. 

A word on not knowing everything:

Following the steps listed above will help you complete your peer review smoothly. First-time reviewers often worry that they will miss something important or that their assessment will be wrong. Both things may occasionally be true, but these possibilities apply to experienced reviewers as well. The solution is not to avoid reviewing until you feel more confident. It is to be honest in your peer review effort and report. 

It is also important for you to be honest and review what aligns with your expertise: if a statistical approach is beyond your knowledge, say so in your report and focus your assessment on what you can evaluate reliably. Editors do not expect omniscience from peer reviewers. They expect honest, thoughtful engagement with the manuscript. 

Once you complete your first review, consider including it on your ORCID profile. A growing number of journals also partner with the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, which lets you build a verified record of your peer review activity over time.  

Peer review is a skill that develops through practice. Each review you complete makes you a little more confident about the next one. The important thing is to begin. 

We’d like to hear from you 

Have you recently completed your first peer review? Or are you preparing for one now? Tell us what you find most challenging or most useful. Your experience could help someone else working through the same process. 

Looking for structured support to grow your reviewing skills? Join the ReviewerOne Reviewer Community and connect with peers, share insights, and learn at every stage. Sign up here