Researchers often receive peer reviews that are not useful. The peer review report has several issues, such as vague comments; a broad list of concerns with no indication of what needs to change or why; dismissive review comments; recommendations without clear elaboration; or a lack of differentiation between major and minor concerns. Unhelpful reviews are frustrating for authors. They are also frustrating for editors, who have to either seek additional reviews or make a decision without the expert guidance they were looking for.
Writing comments that are constructive and genuinely help authors improve their work is a skill you must develop as a peer reviewer. It makes your reviews more valuable, makes you a reviewer that editors want to work with again, and ultimately serves the purpose that peer review is supposed to serve, improving the quality of published research. Here are a few tips to help you write peer review comments:
1. Start with what the manuscript/study does well
Before raising your concerns with a manuscript, identify its strengths. This is not a gesture of courtesy. It demonstrates that you read the paper carefully and that your subsequent critique comes from genuine engagement. It also gives authors a clearer picture of what is working, which validates their approach.
2. Be specific about what is wrong and why
Vague comments are the most unhelpful aspect of reviewer feedback. They leave authors guessing about what you actually want them to change, and they leave editors uncertain about how serious the problems are. Be specific. If the introduction is clear and well-structured, say so. If the methodology is rigorous and well-documented, note it. If the paper addresses a genuinely important gap in the literature, acknowledge it. Specific praise is credible. Authors who understand what is working in their paper are better positioned to revise it without inadvertently dismantling the parts that are good. Similarly, for every concern you raise, ask yourself: Have I explained what the problem is, where in the manuscript it appears, why it matters, and what could be done about it?
Compare these two versions of the same peer review comment:
Example 01:
“The discussion section overstates the findings.”
Example 02:
“The discussion (page 8, paragraph 2) draws the conclusion that the intervention is effective for all adults over 60. However, the study sample was limited to adults aged 60–65 with no significant comorbidities. The conclusion should reflect the characteristics of the actual sample.”
The second version is clear and referenced and helps authors understand exactly what needs to change and where.
3. Separate major concerns from minor ones
One of the most useful things you can do for authors and editors is to distinguish clearly between issues that affect the validity or integrity of the study and those that are about presentation or completeness. When everything is presented as equally important, authors cannot prioritize their revisions, and editors cannot weigh the seriousness of the concerns.
Labeling your comments clearly or organizing them into sections helps both audiences understand what must change and what would improve the paper but is not essential. This structure is also useful to you as you write your feedback: it nudges you to think carefully about which concerns are fundamental and those that are preferential.
4. Watch your tone
The tone of peer review comments matters more than reviewers often realize. Authors invest significant time and effort in their manuscripts, and feedback that is dismissive, sarcastic, or contemptuous, even if the underlying criticism is valid, undermines the culture of mutual respect underlying the scholarly exchange during peer review.
This does not mean that you need to soften your criticism. A well-grounded critique of flawed methodology is necessary and valuable, regardless of how the authors might receive it. Consider the examples below:
Example 01:
“The methods section fails to provide even the most basic information needed to evaluate this study.”
Example 02:
“The methods section does not include sufficient detail to assess reproducibility. Specifically, the participant recruitment process and the data collection instruments are not described.”
Both make the same point. The second comment makes it in a way that is more likely to result in a thoughtful revision rather than a defensive response. Ask yourself this: “Would I be comfortable if the authors knew who wrote this review? If the answer is no, revisit the tone.”
5. Avoid asking for more than is necessary
A common problem in peer review is scope-related expectations: requests for additional analyses, new experiments, or supplementary material that goes beyond what the study actually needs to be valid and publishable. Before requesting additional data or analyses, ask yourself: “Is this essential to the paper’s validity and contribution, or is it something I would find interesting? If it is the latter, leave the suggestion out.”
Authors are not obligated to conduct the study you would have designed or to incorporate additional experiments or newer datasets you recommend. They are obligated to conduct the study they described rigorously and transparently. Reviewers who ask only for what is genuinely necessary are valued by editors and trusted by authors.
6. Close your peer review feedback with what would make the study stronger
If you are recommending revisions, end your comments with a clear statement of what the manuscript needs to be suitable for publication. This gives authors a coherent picture of the path forward, rather than a list of isolated problems to address. If you are recommending rejection, be honest and specific about the reasons. Authors deserve to know what the fundamental issues are. A clear explanation is more useful to them than a vague note that the paper “does not meet the standards of the journal.”
We’d like to hear from you
What is the most useful piece of feedback you have ever received from peer reviewers? What made it stand out? Share it in the comments below. Understanding what good reviewer feedback looks like from the author’s perspective is one of the best ways to improve as a reviewer.
Want to develop your peer review skills further? Join the ReviewerOne Community today!
Leave a Comment