So, you have just been asked by a journal to do your very first journal review, but you are not sure HOW to be a good scientific reviewer. That's where this post comes in!
First, it is important to remember that it is completely fine not to know EVERYTHING, but when you accept to be a reviewer, you have got to be willing to roll up your sleeves and be helpful without being mean! Your goal is to be fair and improve the paper.
The two main questions to ask yourself are:
How well do the authors execute what they promise?
Is the presented work scientifically sound?
Here are some helpful tips to keep in mind...
Read through the paper once without any intention of editing or commenting, then step away for a few days.
Read again and comment. These specific comments can be summarized into a general comment later.
On your second read-through, start with the abstract and conclusions, so when you read through thoroughly, you can determine if the results and discussion are appropriate for the conclusions.
Do not forget to highlight positives!
After at least one read, start with a short paragraph summarising the paper, an abstract of your understanding, you might say.
Summarise any recommendations or major concerns.
Read through your raw comments and synthesize them into a list of action points.
Bullet point any smaller items
Leave your comments for a few days. Then, come back and read through them, making sure they are constructive and kind.
Remove any edits that may be trivial and will not substantially improve the manuscript.
We hope you find these suggestions helpful in centering yourself in your first time as a scientific reviewer. In addition, the IOP has published an Introductory Guide for Reviewers that provides greater detail for early-career researchers beginning to review articles for peer-reviewed journals.