If you are a peer reviewer, you are already familiar with the last step in your review – preparing the peer review report. Every peer review report has two audiences: the editor(s) who read(s) it to make a decision about the manuscript and the authors who read it to understand what needs to change and why. A well-structured report helps both audiences, while an unstructured one, even if it contains genuinely good observations, often fails both. 

Editors receive peer review reports that range from a single paragraph to twenty pages of comments. Neither tends to be particularly useful. What editors consistently find most helpful is a peer review report that is organized, specific, and unambiguous about the reviewer’s overall assessment. Understanding what that looks like in practice makes it easier to produce. This post covers the components of a well-structured peer review report and what makes each component work.  

1. Make sure your summary is clear 

The first thing an editor wants to know is your recommendation. Some journals ask for this as a separate field in the submission system, which makes it explicit. But even when it appears elsewhere, your peer review report should make your position clear from the opening lines of your summary. 

Your summary for the editor is typically confidential; the authors will not see it. Here, you can be direct about your overall view of the manuscript, the significance of the problems you have identified, and any concerns you are not comfortable raising with the authors directly, such as suspected misconduct or undisclosed conflicts of interest. The ethical guidelines for peer reviewers outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) share more information about the kinds of concerns that belong in the confidential section versus those that should be included in the author-facing report. 

A useful editor summary is two to four clear sentences that highlight what the paper is attempting, what its most significant strengths and weaknesses are, and your recommendation.  

2. Acknowledge the strengths of the manuscript 

The first section of your comments for authors should identify strengths in their manuscript. This serves two practical purposes: it shows the authors that you have read the paper carefully and engaged with it on its own terms, and it gives the editor a clearer picture of what the paper does well, which is directly relevant to the publication decision. 

Be specific in your evaluation of the study. “The manuscript is well written” is less useful than “The introduction clearly establishes the gap in existing knowledge, and the research question follows logically from it.” Specific feedback is more credible than generic statements. Generic comments that don’t identify specific examples or sections could give authors the impression that you were simply going through the motions while sharing the feedback. 

3. Separate major concerns from minor ones 

Your report should clearly distinguish between major and minor concerns. This is one of the most structurally important things you can do for both the editor and the authors. 

Separating these two types of issues makes life easier for editors who need to weigh the seriousness of the issues and for authors who need to understand what absolutely must change versus what would help improve the manuscript and its chances of acceptance. When all the issues you identified are presented as a single undifferentiated list, both editors and authors will find it difficult to follow and act upon your feedback. 

4. Be specific and reference the manuscript 

Every concern you raise should be tied to a specific part of the manuscript. Mention page numbers and section details where possible. This makes your feedback actionable and prevents misunderstandings. 

Example: 

Vague feedback: “The methods section lacks sufficient detail.”

Clear feedback: “The methods section (page 4, second paragraph) does not specify how participants were recruited or what the inclusion and exclusion criteria were. The absence of this information makes it difficult to assess whether the sample is representative of the population the authors describe.”

Where a concern has a plausible solution, suggest it. You do not need to prescribe exactly what the authors should do, but point toward a possible fix.

Example: “The authors could address this by including the raw data as supplementary material.” 

5. Handle sensitive issues carefully 

If you have concerns about research integrity, suspected plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or data that appears to have been manipulated, raise these with the editor in your confidential summary, not in your comments to the authors. Editors have processes in place for addressing and/or investigating these issues, and it is not appropriate to accuse authors directly in your peer review report. You can learn more about handling ethics-related issues in our previous post: ReviewerOne overview of COPE guidelines for peer reviewers. 

Similarly, if parts of the manuscript fall outside your area of expertise, say so clearly. You can still evaluate the sections you are qualified to assess and flag those specific sections that should be reviewed by someone with relevant specialist knowledge. Being explicit about the scope of your evaluation is more useful for the editor than attempting to assess something you are not equipped to judge. 

6. Close with a clear recommendation 

Your report should end, or clearly state somewhere, what you are recommending: accept, revise and resubmit with major/minor revisions, reject, or something else. Some journals ask peer reviewers not to state their recommendation directly to authors, reserving that communication solely for the editor. Every journal has its own set of recommendation labels, so you need to follow what the journal uses.  

Irrespective of what you recommend, your feedback should be unambiguous. A peer review report that highlights serious problems with the methods but recommends minor revisions sends mixed signals. Ensure that your recommendation matches the severity of the concerns you have raised. Consistency between your comments and recommendations is one of the clearest signals of a thoughtful and useful review. 

7. Tone and length 

A good peer review report is professional, specific, and honest. It is not a test of how much you know as a peer reviewer. It is not a platform for expressing frustration with the field or the authors. And it is not an opportunity to demand every additional experiment or analysis you can think of. 

In terms of length, aim for enough to make your assessment clear and your concerns actionable. For a straightforward manuscript with minor issues, that might be a page. For a complex manuscript with significant problems, it might be three or four pages. What matters is not the length but whether your assessment is clear and the editor and authors can understand your feedback and act on it. 

We’d like to hear from you 

Have you come across a particularly useful peer review report as an author or an editor? What made it stand out? Share your experience in the comments below.  

For more guidance on peer review, join the ReviewerOne Community. Sign up here to connect, learn, and grow as a reviewer!