Most researchers receive their first peer review invitation with little more than the journal’s instructions and a deadline. What happens next is often improvised: a close read, some notes, and an attempt to organize thoughts into a coherent report. The review gets done, but without a clear framework, it is harder than it needs to be and easier to miss things that matter. 

Reading a manuscript for peer review is different from reading one for your own research. When you read your own work, you are looking for ideas, evidence, and gaps you can build on. When you read to perform a peer review, you are evaluating whether the manuscript is ready to be part of the published scientific record. That shift in purpose requires you to follow a different approach. 

This guide provides you with a structured way to read and engage with a manuscript, from the first scan to the final check. Following the approach outlined below will make the peer review process clearer and your review more useful to everyone involved. 

Begin with an initial read for the big picture 

Before you assess any individual section, read or skim through the manuscript from beginning to end without stopping to take detailed notes. The goal of this first pass is to get a sense of what the authors claim, what they did to support that claim, and whether the manuscript holds together as a coherent whole. By the end of this read, you should be able to answer a few basic questions: 

• Is the research question or objective clearly stated? 

• Does the study design match what the authors are trying to uncover? 

• Do the results address the research question? 

• Does the conclusion follow the evidence presented? 

If the answer to these questions is vague after an initial read, this usually points to structural problem such as unclear framing, a mismatch between methods and aims, or conclusions that outrun the data. These are the kinds of issues that belong at the top of your reviewer report. You can confirm these issues during your detailed read. 

Assess the introduction and research question 

A well-written introduction tells you why the study was undertaken. It establishes the gap in existing knowledge, explains why the gap matters, and sets up the research question or hypothesis in a way that flows naturally from the context. 

Common problems here include a literature review that is too narrow or too broad, a research question that is not clearly defined, or a gap that the authors assert but do not convincingly demonstrate. You are not expected to be an expert in every reference cited, but you should be able to judge whether the framing is convincing, that is, whether a reasonable reader would agree that the research question was worth pursuing. 

Scrutinize the methods section closely 

The methods section is where most reviewers spend the bulk of their critical attention, and for good reason. It is the part of the manuscript that determines whether the conclusions can be trusted. 

You should also ask yourself whether other researchers could reproduce this study using only the information provided. If the answer is no, identify specifically what is missing. Check whether the study design is appropriate for the research question, the sample size is justified, any statistical analyses are correctly applied, and relevant ethical approvals have been approved and shared. 

A frequently missed (and difficult to spot) issue is selective reporting, where the methods described do not quite match what the results section reveals was actually done. Watch for outcomes that appear in the results but were not pre-specified in the methods or analytical choices that seem to have been made after the fact. These may be unintentional misses, and as a reviewer, you need to point these out to the authors. 

Evaluate the results with the methods in mind 

When you evaluate the results, keep the methods section open beside them. Each result should clearly map onto a method described earlier. Tables and figures should be readable independently, with clear labels and units. More importantly, they should complement the research question and methods. Reported statistics should be accurate and complete; for example, p-values without effect sizes tell an incomplete story. 

Be alert to results that are presented as more definitive than the data actually support. Phrases like “the results clearly demonstrate” or “we have shown” are stronger claims than “the results suggest” or “we found evidence consistent with.” These are not just stylistic choices; they reflect how carefully the authors are representing the limits of their evidence. 

Read the discussion as a peer reviewer, not a reader 

Readers often come to the discussion looking for what the findings mean. As a peer reviewer, your job is to look closely at this section to check whether the authors’ claims go beyond the scope warranted by their data. Overreaching conclusions are one of the most common problems in manuscripts that have otherwise solid methods and results. 

A good discussion situates the findings within the existing literature, acknowledges limitations transparently, and draws conclusions that are proportionate to the evidence. It does not introduce new results or citations that were not part of the original analysis. 

Do a final check before you write your peer review report 

Once you have worked through the manuscript in detail, it helps to step back and make a final sweep before you start writing. Specifically, check: 

• Whether the abstract accurately reflects the study’s content and findings 

• Whether the title is appropriate and not misleading 

• Whether the references are complete, accurately cited, and relevant 

• Whether there are any ethical concerns: missing consent statements, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or signs of duplicate submission 

This final check often helps you catch things that could have been overlooked during the close reading, such as a discrepancy between the abstract and the results, or a key reference that is conspicuously absent. 

Take notes as you read 

Develop a habit of keeping a running document open as you read, noting section, page, and line references alongside your observations. This will make it much easier for you to write a well-organized report after the review, and will help you distinguish between major concerns (those that affect the validity of the study) and minor ones (presentation, clarity, missing references). Flagging issues in this way as you go will help you avoid conflatingconflate the two when it comes to writing your report for the editor and feedback for the authors. 

What makes a structured reading approach worth it 

A structured approach does not guarantee a perfect review, but it reduces the likelihoodof you missing something important. It also makes your feedback more organized and useful for both the editor and authors. It also makes the experience less daunting, particularly if you are reviewing for the first time. 

Peer review is a skill that improves with practice and reflection. The more intentionally you approach each manuscript, the more confident and effective you will become. 

We’d like to hear from you 

Do you have a system for reading manuscripts that works well for you? Is there a step in the process where you consistently feel less confident or uncertain? Share your approach or your questions in the comments below. The ReviewerOne community is a great place to learn from others who are working through the same challenges. 

If you are preparing for your first peer review or looking to strengthen your reviewing practice, explore the Reviewer Academy for structured guidance and practical resources.