peer review comments essay

Reviewer comments: examples for common peer review decisions

Peer-reviewing an academic manuscript is not an easy task. Especially if you are unsure about how to formulate your feedback. Examples of reviewer comment s can help! Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples for the most common review decisions: ‘minor revisions’, ‘major revisions’, ‘revise and resubmit’ and ‘reject’ decisions.

Examples of ‘minor revisions’ reviewer comments

Examples of ‘major revisions’ reviewer comments, examples of ‘revise and resubmit’ reviewer comments, examples of ‘reject’ reviewer comments.

• “This is a well-written manuscript that only needs to undergo a few minor changes. First, …”
• “The manuscript is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published.”
• “I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript and only have some minor requests for revision.”
• “The authors develop a unique theoretical framework, and I believe that they should highlight their originality much more.”
• “The authors conduct very relevant research, but fail to emphasise the relevance in their introduction.”
• “The authors draw on extensive empirical evidence. I believe that they can put forward their arguments much more confidently.”
• “The authors adequately addressed my feedback from the first round of peer review. I only have some minor comments for final improvements.”
• “To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest dividing the analysis into several subsections.”
• “Figure 3 is difficult to read and should be adjusted.”
• “Table 1 and 2 can be combined to create a better overview.”
• “The abstract is too long and should be shortened.”
• “I had difficulties understanding the first paragraph on page 5, and suggest that the authors reformulate and simplify it.”
• “The manuscript contains an elaborate literature review, but definitions of the key concepts are needed in the introduction.”
• “Throughout the manuscript, there are several language mistakes. Therefore, I recommend a professional round of language editing before the paper is published.”
• “The paper should undergo professional language editing before it can be published.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘minor revisions’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘minor revisions’ .

• “The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some major issues need to be addressed before it can be published.”
• “This manuscript addresses a timely topic and makes a relevant contribution to the field. However, some major revisions are needed before it can be published.”
• “I enjoyed reading this manuscript, and believe that it is very promising. At the same time, I identified several issues that require the authors’ attention.”
• “The manuscript sheds light on an interesting phenomenon. However, it also has several shortcomings. I strongly encourage the authors to address the following points.”
• “The authors of this manuscript have an ambitious objective and draw on an interesting dataset. However, their main argument is unclear.”
• “The key argument needs to be worked out and formulated much more clearly.”
• “The theoretical framework is promising but incomplete. In my opinion, the authors cannot make their current claims without considering writings on… “
• “The literature review is promising, but disregards recent publications in the field of…”
• “The empirical evidence is at times insufficient to support the authors’ claims. For instance, in section…”
• “I encourage the authors to provide more in-depth evidence. For instance, I would like to see more interview quotes and a more transparent statistical analysis.”
• “The authors work with an interesting dataset. However, I was missing more detailed insights in the actual results. I believe that several additional tables and figures can improve the authors’ argumentation. “
• “I believe that the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and includes a timely discussion. However, I struggled to understand section 3.1.”
• “I think that the manuscript can be improved by removing section 4 and integrating it into section 5.”
• “The discussion and conclusions are difficult to follow and need to be rewritten to highlight the key contributions of this manuscript.”
• “The line of argumentation should be improved by dividing the manuscript into clear sections with subheadings.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘major revisions’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘major revisions’ .

• “I encourage the authors to revise their manuscript and to resubmit it to the journal.”
• “In its current form, this paper cannot be considered for publication. However, I see value in the research approach and encourage the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript.”
• “ With the right changes, I believe that this manuscript can make a valuable contribution to the field of …”
• “The paper addresses a valuable topic and raises interesting questions. However, the logic of the argument is difficult to follow. “
• “The manuscript tries to achieve too many things at the same time. The authors need to narrow down their research focus.”
• “The authors raise many interesting points, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow their main argument. I recommend that the authors determine what their main argument is, and structure their manuscript accordingly.”
• “The literature review raises interesting theoretical debates. However, in its current form, it does not provide a good framework for the empirical analysis.”
• “A clearer theoretical stance will increase the quality of the paper.”
• “The manuscript draws on impressive data, as described in the methodology. However, the wealth of data does not come across in the analysis. My recommendation is to increase the number of interview quotes, figures and statistics in the empirical analysis.”
• “The authors draw several conclusions which are hard to connect to their empirical findings. “
• The authors are advised to critically reflect on the generalizability of their research findings.”
• “The manuscript needs to better emphasise the research relevance and its practical implications.”
• “It is unclear what the authors consider their main contribution to the academic literature, and what they envisage in terms of recommendations for further research.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘revise and resubmit’ .

• “I do not believe that this journal is a good fit for this paper.”
• “While the paper addresses an interesting issue, it is not publishable in its current form.”
• “In its current state, I do not recommend accepting this paper.”
• “Unfortunately, the literature review is inadequate. It lacks..”
• “The paper lacks a convincing theoretical framework ,  which is necessary to be considered for publication.”
• “Unfortunately, the empirical data does not meet disciplinary standards.”
• “While I applaud the authors’ efforts, the paper does not provide sufficient empirical evidence.”
• “The empirical material is too underdeveloped to consider this paper for publication.”
• “The paper has too many structural issues, which makes it hard to follow the argument.”
• “There is a strong mismatch between the literature review and the empirical analysis.”
• “The main contribution of this paper is unclear.”
• “It is unclear what the paper contributes to the existing academic literature.”
• “The originality of this paper needs to be worked out before it can be considered for publication.”
• “Unfortunately, the language and sentence structures of this manuscript are at times incomprehensible. The paper needs rewriting and thorough language editing to allow for a proper peer review.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘reject’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘reject’ decisions .

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Minor revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples

5 proven ways to become an academic peer reviewer, related articles.

The different stages in the manuscript publication process

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

How to write effective cover letters for a paper submission

Dealing with failure as a PhD student

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

How to Master Data Management in Research

25th April 2024 27th April 2024

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

How to Stay Healthy as a Student

25th January 2024 25th January 2024

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

• Peer Review System
• Production Service
• OA Publishing Platform
• Law Review System
• Why Scholastica?
• Customer Stories
• eBooks, Guides & More
• Schedule a demo
• Law Reviews
• Innovations In Academia
• New Features

Subscribe to receive posts by email

• Legal Scholarship
• Peer Review/Publishing
• I agree to the data use terms outlined in Scholastica's Privacy Policy Must agree to privacy policy.

How to Write Constructive Peer Review Comments: Tips every journal should give referees

Like the art of tightrope walking, writing helpful peer review comments requires honing the ability to traverse many fine lines.

Referees have to strike a balance between being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague, too conclusive or too open-ended — and the list goes on. Regardless of the stage of a scholar’s career, learning how to write consistently constructive peer review comments takes time and practice.

Most scholars embark on peer review with little to no formal training. So a bit of guidance from journals before taking on assignments is often welcome and can make a big difference in review quality. In this blog post, we’re rounding up 7 tips journals can give referees to help them conduct solid peer reviews and deliver feedback effectively.

You can incorporate these tips into your journal reviewer guidelines and any training materials you prepare, or feel free to link reviewers straight to this blog post!

Take steps to avoid decision fatigue

Did you know that some sources suggest adults make upwards of 35,000 decisions per day ? Hard to believe, right?!

Whether that stat is indeed the norm, there’s no question that we humans make MANY choices on the regular, from what to wear and what route to take to work to avoid construction to which emails to respond to first and how to go about that really tricky research project in the midst of tackling usual tasks, meetings — and, well, everything else. And that’s all likely before 10 AM!

In his blog post “ How to Peer Review ,” Dr. Matthew Might, Professor in the Department of Medicine and Director of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explained that over time the compounding mental strain of so much deliberation can result in a phenomenon known as decision fatigue . Decision fatigue is a deterioration in decision-making quality, which for busy peer reviewers can lead to writing less than articulate comments at best and missing critical points at worst.

In order to avoid decision fatigue, Might said scholars should try to work on peer reviews early in the day before they become bogged down with other matters. Additionally, he advises referees to work on no more than one review at a time when possible, or within one sitting at least, and to avoid reviewing when they feel tired or hungry. Taking steps to prevent decision fatigue can help scholars produce higher quality comments and, ultimately, write reviews faster because they’ll be working on them at times when they’re likely to be more focused and productive.

Of course, referees won’t always be able to follow every one of the above recommendations all of the time, nor will journal editors know if they have. But, it’s worth it for editors to remind reviewers to take decision fatigue into account before accepting and starting assignments.

Be cognizant of conscious and unconscious biases

Another decision-making factor that can cloud peer reviewers’ judgment that all editors should be hyper-attuned to is conscious and unconscious biases. Journal ethical guidelines are, of course, the first line of defense for preventing explicit biases. Every journal should have conflict of interest policies on when and how to disclose potential competing interests (e.g., financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships) that could influence reviewers’ (as well as editors’ and authors’) level of objectivity in the publication process. The Committee on Publication Ethics offers many helpful guides for developing conflict of interest / competing interest statements, and medical journals can find a “summary of key elements for peer-reviewed medical journal’s conflict of interest policies” from The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) here .

But what about unconscious biases that could have potentially insidious impacts on peer reviews?

Journals can help curb implicit bias by following double-anonymized peer review processes. Though, as the editors of Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology acknowledged in an announcement about their decision to move to double-anonymized peer review, even when all parties’ identities are concealed “unintentional exposure of author or institution identity is sometimes unavoidable, such as in small, specialized fields or subsequent to early sharing of data at conferences.”

Truly tackling unconscious biases requires getting to their roots, starting with acknowledging that they exist. Journals should remind reviewers to be cognizant of the fact that everyone harbors implicit biases that could impact their decision-making, as IOPScience does here and Cambridge University Press does here and provide tips for spotting and addressing biases. IOP advises reviewers to “focus on facts rather than feelings, slow down your decision making, and consider and reconsider the reasons for your conclusions.” And CUP reminds referees that “rooting your review in evidence from the paper or proposal is crucial in avoiding bias.”

Journals can also offer unconscious bias prevention training or direct referees to available resources such as this recorded Peer Reviewer Unconscious Bias webinar from the American Heart Association.

Null or negative results aren’t a basis for rejection

Speaking of forms of bias that can affect the peer review process, “positive results bias” — or the tendency to want to accept and publish positive results rather than null or negative results — is a common one. In a Royal Society blog post on what makes a good peer review, Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Dr. Rebecca Sear, spoke to how positive results bias can throw a wrench in peer review. Speaking from the perspective of an author, editor, and reviewer, Sear said, “at worst, this distorts science by keeping valuable research out of the literature entirely. It also creates inefficiencies in the system when publishable research has to be submitted to multiple journals before publication, burdening several reviewers and editors with the costs of evaluating the same research. A further problem is that the anonymity typically given to peer reviewers can result in unprofessional behavior being unleashed on authors.”

Journals can help prevent positive results bias by clearly stating that recommendations regarding manuscript decisions should be made on the basis of the quality of the research question, methodology, and perceived accuracy (rather than positivity) of the findings. Remind reviewers (and editors) that null and negative results can also provide valuable and even novel contributions to the literature.

List the negatives and the positives

When it comes time to write peer review comments, some scholars may intentionally or not lean heavily towards giving criticism rather than praise. Of course, peer reviews need to be rigorous, and that requires a critical eye, but it’s important for reviewers to let authors know what they’re doing right also. Otherwise, the author may lose sight of the working parts of their submission and could end up actually making it worse in revisions.

Journals should remind reviewers that their goal is to help authors identify what they are doing correctly as well as where to improve . Reviews shouldn’t be so negative that the author ends up pulling apart their entire manuscript. Additionally, it’s worth reminding reviewers to keep snarky comments to themselves. As Dr. Might noted in his blog, the presence of sarcasm in peer review may nullify any useful feedback provided in the eyes of the author.

Give concrete examples and advice (within scope!)

No author likes hearing that an area of their paper “needs work” without getting context as to why. It’s essential to remind reviewers to back up their comments and opinions with concrete examples and suggestions for improvement and ensure that any recommendations they’re making are within the scope of the journal requirements and research subject matter in question.

Remind reviewers that if they make suggestions for authors to provide additional references, data points, or experiments, they should be within scope and something the reviewer can confirm they would be able (and willing) to do themselves if in the author’s position.

One of the best ways to help train reviewers on how to give constructive feedback is to provide them with real-world examples. These “ Peer Review Examples “ from F1000 are a great starting point.

Another way editors can help reviewers give more concrete commentary is by advising them to log their reactions and responses to a paper as they read it. This can help reviewers avoid making blanket criticisms about an entire work that are, in fact, only applicable to some sections. It may also encourage reviewers to recognize and point out more positives!

Providing reviewers with detailed feedback forms and manuscript assessment checklists is another surefire way to help them stay on track.

Don’t be afraid to seek support

Journals should also remind prospective reviewers that it’s OK to ask for support when working on peer reviews. For example, an early-career researcher might want to seek a mentor to co-author their first review with them or provide general guidance on how to determine whether an experiment was conducted in the best manner possible (keeping manuscript information confidential, of course).

To help new referees get their footing, journals can assist them in identifying mentorship opportunities where applicable and offer peer reviewer training or links to external resources. For example, Taylor & Francis has an “ Excellence in Peer Review “ course, and Sense About Science has a “ Peer Review Nuts and Bolts “ guide.

For journals dealing with specialized subject matter, it’s also critical to be prepared to bring in expert opinions when needed. Editors should let reviewers know not to hesitate to suggest bringing in an expert if they feel it’s necessary.

Follow the Golden Rule

Finally, perhaps the best piece of advice journals can give reviewers is to follow the Golden Rule. You know it, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In his “How to peer review” guide, Dr. Matthew Might provided a clear barometer for referees to determine if they’ve prepared a thorough and fair review. “Once you’ve completed your review, ask yourself if you would be satisfied with the quality had you received the same for your own work,” he said. “If the answer is no, revise.”

Related Posts

Research Integrity Tools for Journals: Plagiarism detection best practices

Verifying the originality of submissions is foundational to upholding the research integrity of any scholarly publication. In this post, Head of Marketing and Community Development at Scholastica Danielle Padula discusses plagiarism detection best practices for journals.

Most Popular Scholastica Blog Posts of 2015 for Peer-Reviewed Journals

A look back at the 10 most popular peer-reviewed journal posts from the Scholastica blog in 2015.

New search optimizations for journals hosted via Scholastica

Researchers are more likely to visit and frequent journal websites that provide relevant search results fast. At Scholastica, we get that, and it's why we're continually introducing improvements to optimize the Scholastica Open Access Journal Publishing Platform for web browsers and on-site search. Learn about the latest search features in this blog post.

Submission form customization without added complexity or costs?: Yes, it's possible.

At Scholastica, we don't think peer review system configuration should have to equal complexity or added costs. Here's how we're making submission form customization easier for editors — no need to wade through multi-page manuals or pay for bespoke development work.

Journals Declaring Independence from Corporate Publishers: Past and future

Could the noteworthy actions of Lingua's editors spark a revolution of journals declaring independence from corporate publishers?

From the grassroots: 7 ways journal publishers can promote climate justice

To help promote conversations and initiatives happening around climate justice in scholarly publishing this Open Access Week, Scholastica is highlighting seven ways academy journal publishers can facilitate climate justice from the grassroots. We invite you to share additional ideas and examples in the comments section!

Peer review templates, expert examples and free training courses

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to write a constructive peer review is an essential step in helping to safeguard the quality and integrity of published literature. Read on for resources that will get you on the right track, including peer review templates, example reports and the Web of Science™ Academy: our free, online course that teaches you the core competencies of peer review through practical experience ( try it today ).

How to write a peer review

Understanding the principles, forms and functions of peer review will enable you to write solid, actionable review reports. It will form the basis for a comprehensive and well-structured review, and help you comment on the quality, rigor and significance of the research paper. It will also help you identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice.

This may sound daunting but it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of peer review templates, resources and experts out there to help you, including:

Peer review training courses and in-person workshops

• Peer review templates ( found in our Web of Science Academy )
• Expert examples of peer review reports
• Co-reviewing (sharing the task of peer reviewing with a senior researcher)

Other peer review resources, blogs, and guidelines

We’ll go through each one of these in turn below, but first: a quick word on why learning peer review is so important.

Why learn to peer review?

Peer reviewers and editors are gatekeepers of the research literature used to document and communicate human discovery. Reviewers, therefore, need a sound understanding of their role and obligations to ensure the integrity of this process. This also helps them maintain quality research, and to help protect the public from flawed and misleading research findings.

Learning to peer review is also an important step in improving your own professional development.

You’ll become a better writer and a more successful published author in learning to review. It gives you a critical vantage point and you’ll begin to understand what editors are looking for. It will also help you keep abreast of new research and best-practice methods in your field.

We strongly encourage you to learn the core concepts of peer review by joining a course or workshop. You can attend in-person workshops to learn from and network with experienced reviewers and editors. As an example, Sense about Science offers peer review workshops every year. To learn more about what might be in store at one of these, researcher Laura Chatland shares her experience at one of the workshops in London.

There are also plenty of free, online courses available, including courses in the Web of Science Academy such as ‘Reviewing in the Sciences’, ‘Reviewing in the Humanities’ and ‘An introduction to peer review’

The Web of Science Academy also supports co-reviewing with a mentor to teach peer review through practical experience. You learn by writing reviews of preprints, published papers, or even ‘real’ unpublished manuscripts with guidance from your mentor. You can work with one of our community mentors or your own PhD supervisor or postdoc advisor, or even a senior colleague in your department.

Go to the Web of Science Academy

Peer review templates

Peer review templates are helpful to use as you work your way through a manuscript. As part of our free Web of Science Academy courses, you’ll gain exclusive access to comprehensive guidelines and a peer review report. It offers points to consider for all aspects of the manuscript, including the abstract, methods and results sections. It also teaches you how to structure your review and will get you thinking about the overall strengths and impact of the paper at hand.

• Web of Science Academy template (requires joining one of the free courses)
• PLoS’s review template
• Wiley’s peer review guide (not a template as such, but a thorough guide with questions to consider in the first and second reading of the manuscript)

Beyond following a template, it’s worth asking your editor or checking the journal’s peer review management system. That way, you’ll learn whether you need to follow a formal or specific peer review structure for that particular journal. If no such formal approach exists, try asking the editor for examples of other reviews performed for the journal. This will give you a solid understanding of what they expect from you.

Peer review examples

Understand what a constructive peer review looks like by learning from the experts.

Here’s a sample of pre and post-publication peer reviews displayed on Web of Science publication records to help guide you through your first few reviews. Some of these are transparent peer reviews , which means the entire process is open and visible — from initial review and response through to revision and final publication decision. You may wish to scroll to the bottom of these pages so you can first read the initial reviews, and make your way up the page to read the editor and author’s responses.

• Pre-publication peer review: Patterns and mechanisms in instances of endosymbiont-induced parthenogenesis
• Pre-publication peer review: Can Ciprofloxacin be Used for Precision Treatment of Gonorrhea in Public STD Clinics? Assessment of Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility and an Opportunity for Point-of-Care Testing
• Transparent peer review: Towards a standard model of musical improvisation
• Transparent peer review: Complex mosaic of sexual dichromatism and monochromatism in Pacific robins results from both gains and losses of elaborate coloration
• Post-publication peer review: Brain state monitoring for the future prediction of migraine attacks
• Web of Science Academy peer review: Students’ Perception on Training in Writing Research Article for Publication

F1000 has also put together a nice list of expert reviewer comments pertaining to the various aspects of a review report.

Co-reviewing

Co-reviewing (sharing peer review assignments with senior researchers) is one of the best ways to learn peer review. It gives researchers a hands-on, practical understanding of the process.

In an article in The Scientist , the team at Future of Research argues that co-reviewing can be a valuable learning experience for peer review, as long as it’s done properly and with transparency. The reason there’s a need to call out how co-reviewing works is because it does have its downsides. The practice can leave early-career researchers unaware of the core concepts of peer review. This can make it hard to later join an editor’s reviewer pool if they haven’t received adequate recognition for their share of the review work. (If you are asked to write a peer review on behalf of a senior colleague or researcher, get recognition for your efforts by asking your senior colleague to verify the collaborative co-review on your Web of Science researcher profiles).

The Web of Science Academy course ‘Co-reviewing with a mentor’ is uniquely practical in this sense. You will gain experience in peer review by practicing on real papers and working with a mentor to get feedback on how their peer review can be improved. Students submit their peer review report as their course assignment and after internal evaluation receive a course certificate, an Academy graduate badge on their Web of Science researcher profile and is put in front of top editors in their field through the Reviewer Locator at Clarivate.

Here are some external peer review resources found around the web:

• Peer Review Resources from Sense about Science
• Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense about Science
• How to review journal manuscripts by R. M. Rosenfeld for Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
• Ethical guidelines for peer review from COPE
• An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts by Callaham, Schriger & Cooper for Annals of Emergency Medicine (requires Flash or Adobe)
• EQUATOR Network’s reporting guidelines for health researchers

And finally, we’ve written a number of blogs about handy peer review tips. Check out some of our top picks:

• How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know
• Want To Peer Review? Top 10 Tips To Get Noticed By Editors
• Review a manuscript like a pro: 6 tips from a Web of Science Academy supervisor
• How to write a structured reviewer report: 5 tips from an early-career researcher

Want to learn more? Become a master of peer review and connect with top journal editors. The Web of Science Academy – your free online hub of courses designed by expert reviewers, editors and Nobel Prize winners. Find out more today.

Related posts

Reimagining research impact: introducing web of science research intelligence.

Beyond discovery: AI and the future of the Web of Science

Clarivate welcomes the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information

• Tel: +81-3-5541-4400 (Monday–Friday, 09:30–18:00)

Giving an effective peer review: sample framework and comments

The system of peer-reviewed journals requires that academics review papers written by other academics, that is, papers written by their peers. We have previously discussed peer review generally ( Why do the rules and conventions of academic publishing keep changing and how can researchers stay current? ) and how authors can effectively respond to peer review ( Writing effective response letters to reviewers: Tips and a template ). This article will cover the other side: being a reviewer.

Here, we'll look at the basic tenets of peer review, and we've provided a sample framework to help new reviewers give comments that will help authors strengthen their papers.

Basic tenets of peer reviewing:

There are 5 basic tenets that should be kept in mind:

• Decline the review if you have any conflicts of interest (COIs).
• Remember that you're advising the journal editor, not making the decision about whether to accept or reject.
• Try to be helpful and always respectful to the author.
• Maintain confidentiality of the paper contents.
• Decline the review if you are too busy, or not familiar enough with the topic, to complete a proper review.

Peer reviews are intended to be impartial (unbiased), and so anyone asked to be a reviewer should consider, before accepting, whether they have any COIs. Anything that could make you, as a reviewer, consider the paper more or less favorably because of your relationship with the author is a COI. You should decline to review, or at minimum disclose to the journal editor, papers written by (a) past co-authors of yours, (b) members of your department, (c) your students or mentors, (d) personal friends, and (e) professional rivals. You should also decline if you will gain any potential financial or personal benefits from publication of the work. If you are unsure about whether a conflict of interest exists, check the journal's guidelines or with the journal editor. As examples of COI policies, Elsevier has a general factsheet on COIs and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides information about peer reviewer responsibilities .

The reviewer acts as an advisor to the journal editor. Because of this, the review should be more than a simple "accept" or "reject". When writing a review, you should describe the reasons for the recommendation so that the editor can make an informed decision. It is far more important to comment on the academic content of a paper than on grammar and punctuation. However, if the language is too poor to understand the contents adequately, then alert the journal editor. See below for a sample framework that will assist you in ensuring that you've covered the most important points in your review.

The review will be sent to the author of the paper. Because of this, reviewers are in a strong position to advise the author on how the paper could be strengthened. Whether you are recommending acceptance or rejection, the author could benefit from your feedback and advice. One particular caution is when you want to suggest the authors cite your own papers—do this sparingly. The review should be intended to help the author, not the reviewer. Finally, reviews should be respectful in tone. Unfortunately, we've all seen derogatory and unhelpful reviewer comments at times, which do not help the author. Peer review should be collegial and respectful.

Reviewers receive submitted papers with the understanding that they are handling confidential communications. As such, they should not discuss the review or disclose any of its content to third parties. Reviewers also should not use their knowledge of the work they are reviewing to further their own personal interests.

Reviewers who are not able to provide a proper review, due to lack of time or lack of expertise in the area covered by the paper, should decline the review.

Get featured articles and other author resources sent to you in English, Japanese, or both languages via our monthly newsletter.

Sample Framework for Your Reviewer Comments

Many journals provide reviewers with a form to fill out during review, but the framework below can be used in other cases.

Describe the basic contribution of the paper. This should be a few sentences on the topic of the paper. Beginning with this helps the journal editor and lets the author know that you've understood the paper.

"This paper discusses _______________. The main contribution of the paper is ____________."

Give your recommendation. You can use one of the following sentences.

"I recommend that this paper be accepted."

"I recommend that this paper be accepted after minor revision."

"I recommend that this paper not be accepted without major revision."

"I recommend that this paper be rejected."

Give your reasons for your recommendation. Label these as "major comments". A few examples are given to the right.

Major comments:

• The statistical analysis in this paper is suitable/unsuitable for….
• In terms of experimental technique, this paper is conventional/novel, and so…
• The Methods section does not clearly explain…
• The results obtained will be useful in…
• Some of the fundamental/recent papers in the field are not cited, among these…
• I would like to see some discussion of the findings of the papers in relation to recent findings and developments in ______.

Finally, give some additional comments about the paper. This is where you can note problems with spelling and/or grammar, suggest changes to figures and tables, and make other specific comments. Label these as "minor comments". A few examples are to the right.

Minor comments:

• In several places, you've used the term _____, but it seems you mean _____.
• In some of the figures, the legends are too small to be legible.
• On page ____, it is stated that _____, but the paper by Smith et al. states that ______. Can you comment on this disparity?
• Have you thought about testing this with _____________?

We hope you've found these tips useful. We currently offer support for new and experienced reviewers in a number of ways, including by translating their comments to English and by editing their English comments to ensure that the authors receiving the review have high-quality, well-worded comments that help them strengthen their manuscripts.

Also, if you have any questions about writing effective reviewer comments, please do let us know. We're happy to support you in this important academic task.

Stay up to date

Our monthly newsletter offers valuable tips on writing and presenting your research most effectively, as well as advice on avoiding or resolving common problems that authors face.

Looking for subject-specialists?

Your research represents you, and your career reflects thousands of hours of your time.

Here at ThinkSCIENCE, our translation and editing represent us, and our reputation reflects thousands of published papers and millions of corrections and improvements.

Don’t be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments

• The Writer’s Craft
• Open access
• Published: 11 June 2021
• Volume 10 , pages 299–303, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Chris Watling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9686-795X 1 ,
• Shiphra Ginsburg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4595-6650 2 &
• Lorelei Lingard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-3355 3  

21k Accesses

10 Citations

131 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

In the Writer’s Craft section, we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?

We recently had a manuscript rejected from a journal following peer review. That in itself is an occurrence neither unusual nor tragic. We all experience rejection, and often the peer review process improves our work so that we can resubmit and contribute more convincingly to the scholarly conversation. But this time the experience felt different. This time it felt personal . We were left feeling deflated, belittled, and irritated—not exactly the optimal frame of mind for retooling a rejected paper.

Peer review can sting. It is intended as a collegial, respectful enterprise, but the popular “Reviewer 2” meme in social media suggests that it often feels otherwise [ 1 , 2 ]. Reviewer 2 symbolizes the peer reviewer who is rude, vague, smug, committed to pet issues, theories, and methodologies, and unwilling to treat the authors as peers. A recent linguistic analysis of such reviews found features such as attitude markers (e.g., verbs like “reject”, sentence adverbs like “absurdly”, and adjectives like “illogical”), self-mention (e.g., “I cannot possibly imagine”), and boosters (e.g., “the manuscript is utterly ridiculous”) [ 3 ].

Reviews exemplifying such characteristics are hard to take and can have a number of negative consequences for the authors, the journal, and the field. Reviewer 2 can push the imposter syndrome button for both novice and more experienced writers, causing them to doubt their scientific abilities. They can consign papers with good potential to a desk drawer for eternity. They can cost journals future submissions and the field future knowledge. And perhaps most disturbingly, they can disproportionately harm underrepresented groups. A 2019 study found that intersectional groups such as women of colour and non-binary people of colour were most likely to report direct negative impacts on scientific aptitude, productivity, and career advancement after receiving an unprofessional peer review [ 4 ]. In an effort to help us all avoid being Reviewer 2, this Writer’s Craft reflects on what makes constructive peer review comments so tricky to write and offers suggestions to make your next peer review clearer, more collegial, and more efficient.

Recognizing the challenge

Peer review is voluntary, unpaid, and often unrecognized and unrewarded work by busy academics and clinicians. We’re squeezing this work in on evenings and weekends, and perhaps feeling resentful as we do about the time stolen from our own writing projects [ 5 ]. But peer review is also a critical community service, and one with multiple aims: it serves the field, the journal, and the authors. In the service of the field, peer review intends to uphold shared standards to ensure that our combined knowledge progresses robustly. In the service of the journal, peer review assesses the paper’s potential to contribute originally to an ongoing conversation. In the service of the authors, peer review supports them to achieve both—the high standards of the field and the meaningful advancement of a journal’s scholarly conversation. Writing peer review comments with three aims in mind, however, is complicated, particularly when you are recommending major revision or rejection. And since outright acceptance is vanishingly rare, feedback to the authors about how to improve is almost always tangled up with assessment to the editor about how to proceed regarding acceptance. So the first step as a reviewer is to recognize the challenge of multiple aims and audiences, and to write each section of your review with a clear sense of which of these aims and audiences you’re prioritizing, and why.

Making it meaningful

The author and the journal’s editor need different things from your review, and so the risk that someone will be disappointed—or disheartened—is high. The author hopes for feedback that will strengthen their scholarship, while the journal wants an assessment of the paper’s quality and suitability for publication. How can we reconcile the sometimes-competing purposes of our reviews to ensure they are meaningful? Let’s consider some helpful writing strategies.

Your conversation with the author

Treat the feedback-forward parts of the review as a conversation, writing as though you were sitting down with the author(s) to talk about their work. The second person, used rarely in academic writing, works well here to build rapport and create a sense of intimacy. For example, notice how the third person approach creates distance and evokes a sense of a harsh judgment:

The authors do not sufficiently explain themselves in the Methods section, which is jargon-filled .

Perhaps you felt defensive just reading that line! In contrast, an approach that uses first- (“I”) and second-person (“you”) pronouns feels more like a conversation with a colleague:

I stumbled over some of the jargon in your Methods section; I’d suggest that you adopt more plain-language explanations to reduce the risk of losing your reader .

Remember that effective feedback should be specific and actionable [ 6 ]. Don’t leave the author in suspense. If an Introduction is suffering the absence of one or two key citations, name them if you can, rather than settling for a vague dismissal like “There is a vast literature on this topic that the authors have ignored.” If the Discussion fails to revisit one of the Introduction’s core concepts, call that out explicitly. Instead of “The Discussion is underwhelming and fails to show how the study has moved the needle in this domain” , try something more directive, such as “I’d suggest returning more clearly in the Discussion to the issue of patient-centred care and how this study challenges some of its core principles, given the prominence of that line of argument in the Introduction.”

Meaningful feedback also targets the task and not the person [ 7 ]. Steer clear of personal swipes at the researchers, even if you think their paper falls short. Perhaps you are tempted to write something like this:

The authors seem oblivious to the extensive existing literature on this subject in the field of higher education, and thus claim their discoveries as original when they are not .

Take a breath—and consider revising in a way that redirects the feedback away from the “oblivious” authors and toward a piece of work that could be strengthened. While the version below remains unmistakably critical, its critique is directed at the paper and not at the author(s):

The paper’s claim to originality is weakened by its lack of reference to similar work done in the field of higher education .

You’ll also notice that this comment deliberately deviates from the use of the second person to achieve this redirect.

Such redirection is a form of hedging, which refers to a toolbox of linguistic and rhetorical moves that allow us to express caution, uncertainty, and politeness. Hedging is necessary and abundant in scientific writing [ 8 , 9 ], and it also has a place in peer review. Hedging acts to save face [ 10 ], buffering the author whose work is being reviewed against threats to their self-esteem, and protecting the reviewer from being perceived as arrogant or dismissive. These impacts matter, because without them feedback is harder to accept and use. Hedging positions authors to be open to your suggestions. It doesn’t imply evading hard truths or avoiding critique. Rather, it recognizes that when feedback is baldly face-threatening or tramples on self-esteem, it is less likely to be effective in shaping real improvements in the work.

Your conversation with the editor

While it’s helpful to think of the review primarily as a conversation with the author, remember that the journal’s editors (chief and/or associate) will be listening in. Every line of your review need not be construed as feedback for the author. From time to time, you need to ensure that the editor will hear your concerns clearly, understand how much weight you assign to those concerns, and appreciate the rationale for your ultimate recommendation. Most journals ask reviewers to start with a few comments reflecting their overall impression of the paper, and these comments are as much for the editor as for the authors. Here’s your chance to say something like:

The authors have done a rigorous piece of work that addresses a pressing question in health professions education. While I have identified a number of opportunities for the paper to be strengthened, I find it a compelling piece of work that represents a novel contribution to the literature on this issue, and I look forward to seeing it in print .

This opening salvo lets the associate editor know that you think the paper is strong and that the journal would do well to publish it. With that context in mind, the associate editor need not try to read between the lines of your recommendation. They will understand—even if you suggest a significant revision—that any subsequent critiques are not fatal flaws, but rather opportunities for improvement. Many journals also include a confidential comments box that reviewers can use to flag up issues to the editor. Reviewers may use this box in a variety of situations, such as when they’re worried about ethical or methodological issues, uncertain about the decision they’ve recommended, or compelled to contextualize their review comments. Be careful, though, that you’re not contradicting your reviews in this space, or using it for critiques that your bland, uncritical reviews avoid mentioning. Editors are in a tough spot when the reviewer comments don’t support a final decision that was prompted by confidential comments.

The first few sentences of your review of each section of the paper might similarly contain messages for the associate editor that reflect your judgment and the intensity of your feeling. For example:

While this Introduction is well written, I struggle to identify the gap in the literature that this study seeks to fill. The literature review is comprehensive but rather uncritical, creating the impression that we already know everything there is to know about this problem. This issue contributes to my main concern about this paper: I’m just not persuaded that the work is sufficiently original to merit publication .

Here, the issues raised are clearly weighty and threaten the paper’s acceptability for publication. The associate editor will no doubt get the message. At the same time, hedging strategies soften the blow for the authors. The concerns are directed at the product (“the Introduction”, “this paper”) rather than at its producers. Positives (“well written” and “comprehensive”) balance the critiques, and modifiers allow for some uncertainty in the judgments that are offered (“ rather uncritical”, “not sufficiently original”). And the use of “I struggle” and “I’m not persuaded” reminds us that a review is, after all, opinion and not universal truth.

Think big picture

While it may be tempting to point out every single sentence or idea that you disagree with, don’t. Authors may feel like you are ‘piling on’ the critique, and it will be difficult for them to sift through to find what is essential. Instead, hit the high points and don’t nitpick. The high points include whether or not the researchers have tackled a problem that matters, have used appropriate and well-conducted methods, have written a story that is coherent, and have situated their work in the existing conversation. You are not a copy editor. Particularly when the decision is to reject, don’t drown the authors in all the typos, comma splices, and improperly formatted references that you noticed. If the language overall is difficult to navigate as a reader, make a summary comment about that with a few examples. Something like “ I notice that the authors use single and double quotation marks inconsistently in the manuscript, which can be distracting for readers. I’d suggest a careful proofread with this issue in mind before resubmitting ” may help the authors more than a detailed list of every instance of sloppy punctuation.

Reviews can consume several hours of the reviewer’s time. We think this should be reconsidered, as it may contribute to the resentment and reviewer burnout we highlighted above. One strategy is to take an hour to read the paper and make some notes, and then set it aside. Taking a pause like this is especially important if the paper has evoked an emotional response, which can lead to some of the nastier or more personal comments described above. Then take, at most, another hour to craft your review. In our combined experience, if it seems to be taking much longer than this, it may be a sign that the paper has too many flaws and will ultimately be rejected. If this is the case, it may be more helpful for you (and for the authors) to streamline your comments and focus on hitting the high points. If your reviews regularly take more than a couple of hours, it is possible that you are overstepping your role. You are not the authors’ supervisor or thesis advisor, and while it may feel instinctive to take an educational approach, it may not actually be helpful for the authors or editors.

Another strategy to help the authors and editors interpret your comments is to carefully distinguish between your reflections and your requests. Reflections are nice, as they show the authors that you are deeply engaging with their work. But keep these reflections brief. We have seen reviews that run longer than the paper they are commenting on, which in turn require similarly lengthy responses back from the authors: this can put both authors and editors in a difficult position, especially if word limits are an issue. In the end, what matters are your suggestions for revision: actionable requests for more, less, or different material in certain parts of the paper. It may be helpful to demarcate these two sections clearly, so the authors know specifically what to respond to.

Finally, we offer a few quick tips to help you avoid some of the pitfalls of peer review commentary.

Don’t police

You may wish the authors had conducted another study. They didn’t. So don’t request it. Certain peccadillos may bother you, but don’t fixate on them or allow yourself to view them as fatal flaws. Consider what can be fixed with clearer writing and what cannot—for example, poor study design or low response rates cannot be corrected at this stage. If these flaws are dealbreakers, point that out honestly to the authors and the editor. But there are relatively few fatal flaws, and things like an incomplete description of a coding process or insufficient explanation of a theory rarely count as such. Remember that the editors and readers will also cast a critical eye on the work; you needn’t see yourself as the last word on the study.

Beware your ego

As our discussion of hedging suggested, feedback is more effective if it isn’t personal. That goes for the feedback writer as well as the feedback recipient. Frustrated that your work didn’t make it onto the author’s citation list? Let it go. Self-citation requests abound in peer review and may be a questionable practice. One study reported that 44% of requests for additional citations were self-citations [ 11 ]. If the omission is truly a gaping hole in the literature review, make it clear why and provide the citation. Authors shouldn’t have to guess which of your papers you think is relevant. Surprised to find a completely different orientation to a problem you’ve studied? Or taken aback that your work is explicitly challenged by the paper? Set aside the instinct to protect your turf and engage with the ideas on their own terms. If you cannot, perhaps you should recuse yourself as a reviewer.

Identify yourself

Reviews can be blinded, meaning the reviewers do not know who the authors are, and anonymous, meaning authors don’t know who their reviewers are. Identifying yourself puts you in the rhetorical position of talking to the writer, which ought to trigger the same diplomacy skills you’d use when standing up to ask a question following a conference presentation. (If you lack such skills altogether, you probably have no business engaging in peer review.) In an effort to improve the quality and tone of reviews, some journals now offer “open peer review” in which reviewers can opt (or are required, depending on the journal) to sign their reviews. There are power issues to be considered here: reviewers earlier in their career may fear the consequences of unblinded reviewer comments, particularly for work written by senior members of the community.

Learn from others

Some journals now share with all reviewers both the editor’s decision and the full set of reviews. Not only does this make reviewers more publicly accountable for their remarks, but it also affords them the opportunity to read other reviewers’ comments. We have found this approach quite educational. We get to see when other reviewers respond differently than we did, which reminds us that interpretation is key. We note that other reviews have perceived different problems and strengths than the ones our review focused on. And sometimes we pick up turns of phrase that are particularly effective, and we unashamedly steal them for future application when we need to make difficult peer review feedback more digestible.

Peer review can be thankless work. But imagine that it wasn’t. Imagine that you are writing a review that the author will genuinely thank you for. Maybe not today … but someday. If the paper is accepted, you want to feel that you’ve played a small role in helping to strengthen it, and the author should feel a bit prouder of their work. And even if the paper is rejected, you’d like the authors to feel they have gained something of value. For some authors, the idea that a reviewer really engaged with and took their writing seriously is affirming, even if the decision is to reject. So don’t be a Reviewer 2 who leaves writers disillusioned and discouraged. Be that reviewer who engages and encourages. That reviewer who, a year hence, might get invited for coffee at a conference as gratitude for the role you played in strengthening the author’s manuscript.

Peterson DAM. Dear reviewer 2: Go f’ yourself. Soc Sci Q. 2020;101:1648–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12824 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Shit my reviewers say.. n. d.. https://shitmyreviewerssay.tumblr.com/ . Accessed 29 Jan 2021.

Hyland K, Jiang FK. “This work is antithetical to the spirit of research”: an anatomy of harsh peer reviews. J Engl Acad Purp. 2020;46:100867.

Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ. 2019;7:e8247.

Smith R. Peer reviewers—time for a mass rebellion? 2021. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/01/richard-smith-peer-reviewers-time-for-mass-rebellion/ . Accessed 14 Feb 2021, The BMJ Opinion.

Lefroy J, Watling C, Teunissen PW, Brand P. Guidelines on feedback for clinical education: the dos, don’ts, and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:284–99.

Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112.

Lingard L. The academic hedge, part 1: modal tuning in your research writing. Perspect Med Educ. 2020;9:107–10.

Hyland K. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Talk Text. 1998;18:349–82.

Google Scholar  

Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness: some universals in language usage. London: Cambridge University Press; 1987.

Book   Google Scholar  

Peebles E, Scandlyn M, Hesp BR. A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal. Plos One. 2020;15(8):e237804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237804 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Oncology and Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada

Chris Watling

Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Shiphra Ginsburg

Department of Medicine and Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada

Lorelei Lingard

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Watling .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Watling, C., Ginsburg, S. & Lingard, L. Don’t be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments. Perspect Med Educ 10 , 299–303 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00670-z

Download citation

Received : 14 February 2021

Revised : 26 April 2021

Accepted : 11 May 2021

Published : 11 June 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00670-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 08 October 2018

How to write a thorough peer review

• Mathew Stiller-Reeve 0

Mathew Stiller-Reeve is a climate researcher at NORCE/Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway, the leader of SciSnack.com, and a thematic editor at Geoscience Communication .

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Scientists do not receive enough peer-review training. To improve this situation, a small group of editors and I developed a peer-review workflow to guide reviewers in delivering useful and thorough analyses that can really help authors to improve their papers.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06991-0

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged. You can get in touch with the editor at [email protected].

Related Articles

Engage more early-career scientists as peer reviewers

Help graduate students to become good peer reviewers

• Peer review

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

Nature Index 01 MAY 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

How I fled bombed Aleppo to continue my career in science

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

PhD/master's Candidate

PhD/master's Candidate    Graduate School of Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University is seeking candidates for PhD and master's students i...

Kanazawa University

Senior Research Assistant in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Senior Research Scientist in Human Immunology, high-dimensional (40+) cytometry, ICS and automated robotic platforms.

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Boston University Atomic Lab

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Peer Review Examples (300 Key Positive, Negative Phrases)

By Status.net Editorial Team on February 4, 2024 — 18 minutes to read

Peer review is a process that helps you evaluate your work and that of others. It can be a valuable tool in ensuring the quality and credibility of any project or piece of research. Engaging in peer review lets you take a fresh look at something you may have become familiar with. You’ll provide constructive criticism to your peers and receive the same in return, allowing everyone to learn and grow.

Finding the right words to provide meaningful feedback can be challenging. This article provides positive and negative phrases to help you conduct more effective peer reviews.

Crafting Positive Feedback

Praising professionalism.

• Your punctuality is exceptional.
• You always manage to stay focused under pressure.
• I appreciate your respect for deadlines.
• Your attention to detail is outstanding.
• You exhibit great organizational skills.
• Your dedication to the task at hand is commendable.
• I love your professionalism in handling all situations.
• Your ability to maintain a positive attitude is inspiring.
• Your commitment to the project shows in the results.
• I value your ability to think critically and come up with solutions.

Acknowledging Skills

• Your technical expertise has greatly contributed to our team’s success.
• Your creative problem-solving skills are impressive.
• You have an exceptional way of explaining complex ideas.
• I admire your ability to adapt to change quickly.
• Your presentation skills are top-notch.
• You have a unique flair for motivating others.
• Your negotiation skills have led to wonderful outcomes.
• Your skillful project management ensured smooth progress.
• Your research skills have produced invaluable findings.
• Your knack for diplomacy has fostered great relationships.

Encouraging Teamwork

• Your ability to collaborate effectively is evident.
• You consistently go above and beyond to help your teammates.
• I appreciate your eagerness to support others.
• You always bring out the best in your team members.
• You have a gift for uniting people in pursuit of a goal.
• Your clear communication makes collaboration a breeze.
• You excel in creating a nurturing atmosphere for the team.
• Your leadership qualities are incredibly valuable to our team.
• I admire your respectful attitude towards team members.
• You have a knack for creating a supportive and inclusive environment.

Highlighting Achievements

• Your sales performance this quarter has been phenomenal.
• Your cost-saving initiatives have positively impacted the budget.
• Your customer satisfaction ratings have reached new heights.
• Your successful marketing campaign has driven impressive results.
• You’ve shown a strong improvement in meeting your performance goals.
• Your efforts have led to a significant increase in our online presence.
• The success of the event can be traced back to your careful planning.
• Your project was executed with precision and efficiency.
• Your innovative product ideas have provided a competitive edge.
• You’ve made great strides in strengthening our company culture.

Formulating Constructive Criticism

Addressing areas for improvement.

When providing constructive criticism, try to be specific in your comments and avoid generalizing. Here are 30 example phrases:

• You might consider revising this sentence for clarity.
• This section could benefit from more detailed explanations.
• It appears there may be a discrepancy in your data.
• This paragraph might need more support from the literature.
• I suggest reorganizing this section to improve coherence.
• The introduction can be strengthened by adding context.
• There may be some inconsistencies that need to be resolved.
• This hypothesis needs clearer justification.
• The methodology could benefit from additional details.
• The conclusion may need a stronger synthesis of the findings.
• You might want to consider adding examples to illustrate your point.
• Some of the terminology used here could be clarified.
• It would be helpful to see more information on your sources.
• A summary might help tie this section together.
• You may want to consider rephrasing this question.
• An elaboration on your methods might help the reader understand your approach.
• This image could be clearer if it were larger or had labels.
• Try breaking down this complex idea into smaller parts.
• You may want to revisit your tone to ensure consistency.
• The transitions between topics could be smoother.
• Consider adding citations to support your argument.
• The tables and figures could benefit from clearer explanations.
• It might be helpful to revisit your formatting for better readability.
• This discussion would benefit from additional perspectives.
• You may want to address any logical gaps in your argument.
• The literature review might benefit from a more critical analysis.
• You might want to expand on this point to strengthen your case.
• The presentation of your results could be more organized.
• It would be helpful if you elaborated on this connection in your analysis.
• A more in-depth conclusion may better tie your ideas together.

Offering Specific Recommendations

• You could revise this sentence to say…
• To make this section more detailed, consider discussing…
• To address the data discrepancy, double-check the data at this point.
• You could add citations from these articles to strengthen your point.
• To improve coherence, you could move this paragraph to…
• To add context, consider mentioning…
• To resolve these inconsistencies, check…
• To justify your hypothesis, provide evidence from…
• To add detail to your methodology, describe…
• To synthesize your findings in the conclusion, mention…
• To illustrate your point, consider giving an example of…
• To clarify terminology, you could define…
• To provide more information on sources, list…
• To create a summary, touch upon these key points.
• To rephrase this question, try asking…
• To expand upon your methods, discuss…
• To make this image clearer, increase its size or add labels for…
• To break down this complex idea, consider explaining each part like…
• To maintain a consistent tone, avoid using…
• To smooth transitions between topics, use phrases such as…
• To support your argument, cite sources like…
• To explain tables and figures, add captions with…
• To improve readability, use formatting elements like headings, bullet points, etc.
• To include additional perspectives in your discussion, mention…
• To address logical gaps, provide reasoning for…
• To create a more critical analysis in your literature review, critique…
• To expand on this point, add details about…
• To present your results more organized, use subheadings, tables, or graphs.
• To elaborate on connections in your analysis, show how x relates to y by…
• To provide a more in-depth conclusion, tie together the major findings by…

Highlighting Positive Aspects

When offering constructive criticism, maintaining a friendly and positive tone is important. Encourage improvement by highlighting the positive aspects of the work. For example:

• Great job on this section!
• Your writing is clear and easy to follow.
• I appreciate your attention to detail.
• Your conclusions are well supported by your research.
• Your argument is compelling and engaging.
• I found your analysis to be insightful.
• The organization of your paper is well thought out.
• Your use of citations effectively strengthens your claims.
• Your methodology is well explained and thorough.
• I’m impressed with the depth of your literature review.
• Your examples are relevant and informative.
• You’ve made excellent connections throughout your analysis.
• Your grasp of the subject matter is impressive.
• The clarity of your images and figures is commendable.
• Your transitions between topics are smooth and well-executed.
• You’ve effectively communicated complex ideas.
• Your writing style is engaging and appropriate for your target audience.
• Your presentation of results is easy to understand.
• Your tone is consistent and professional.
• Your overall argument is persuasive.
• Your use of formatting helps guide the reader.
• Your tables, graphs, and illustrations enhance your argument.
• Your interpretation of the data is insightful and well-reasoned.
• Your discussion is balanced and well-rounded.
• The connections you make throughout your paper are thought-provoking.
• Your approach to the topic is fresh and innovative.
• You’ve done a fantastic job synthesizing information from various sources.
• Your attention to the needs of the reader is commendable.
• The care you’ve taken in addressing counterarguments is impressive.
• Your conclusions are well-drawn and thought-provoking.

Balancing Feedback

Combining positive and negative remarks.

When providing peer review feedback, it’s important to balance positive and negative comments: this approach allows the reviewer to maintain a friendly tone and helps the recipient feel reassured.

Examples of Positive Remarks:

• Well-organized
• Clear and concise
• Excellent use of examples
• Thorough research
• Articulate argument
• Engaging writing style
• Thoughtful analysis
• Strong grasp of the topic
• Relevant citations
• Logical structure
• Smooth transitions
• Compelling conclusion
• Original ideas
• Solid supporting evidence
• Succinct summary

Examples of Negative Remarks:

• Unclear thesis
• Lacks focus
• Insufficient evidence
• Overgeneralization
• Inconsistent argument
• Redundant phrasing
• Jargon-filled language
• Poor formatting
• Grammatical errors
• Unconvincing argument
• Confusing organization
• Needs more examples
• Weak citations
• Unsupported claims
• Ambiguous phrasing

Ensuring Objectivity

Avoid using emotionally charged language or personal opinions. Instead, base your feedback on facts and evidence.

For example, instead of saying, “I don’t like your choice of examples,” you could say, “Including more diverse examples would strengthen your argument.”

Personalizing Feedback

Tailor your feedback to the individual and their work, avoiding generic or blanket statements. Acknowledge the writer’s strengths and demonstrate an understanding of their perspective. Providing personalized, specific, and constructive comments will enable the recipient to grow and improve their work.

For instance, you might say, “Your writing style is engaging, but consider adding more examples to support your points,” or “I appreciate your thorough research, but be mindful of avoiding overgeneralizations.”

Phrases for Positive Feedback

• Great job on the presentation, your research was comprehensive.
• I appreciate your attention to detail in this project.
• You showed excellent teamwork and communication skills.
• Impressive progress on the task, keep it up!
• Your creativity really shined in this project.
• Thank you for your hard work and dedication.
• Your problem-solving skills were crucial to the success of this task.
• I am impressed by your ability to multitask.
• Your time management in finishing this project was stellar.
• Excellent initiative in solving the issue.
• Your work showcases your exceptional analytical skills.
• Your positive attitude is contagious!
• You were successful in making a complex subject easier to grasp.
• Your collaboration skills truly enhanced our team’s effectiveness.
• You handled the pressure and deadlines admirably.
• Your written communication is both thorough and concise.
• Your responsiveness to feedback is commendable.
• Your flexibility in adapting to new challenges is impressive.
• Thank you for your consistently accurate work.
• Your devotion to professional development is inspiring.
• You display strong leadership qualities.
• You demonstrate empathy and understanding in handling conflicts.
• Your active listening skills contribute greatly to our discussions.
• You consistently take ownership of your tasks.
• Your resourcefulness was key in overcoming obstacles.
• You consistently display a can-do attitude.
• Your presentation skills are top-notch!
• You are a valuable asset to our team.
• Your positive energy boosts team morale.
• Your work displays your tremendous growth in this area.
• Your ability to stay organized is commendable.
• You consistently meet or exceed expectations.
• Your commitment to self-improvement is truly inspiring.
• Your persistence in tackling challenges is admirable.
• Your ability to grasp new concepts quickly is impressive.
• Your critical thinking skills are a valuable contribution to our team.
• You demonstrate impressive technical expertise in your work.
• Your contributions make a noticeable difference.
• You effectively balance multiple priorities.
• You consistently take the initiative to improve our processes.
• Your ability to mentor and support others is commendable.
• You are perceptive and insightful in offering solutions to problems.
• You actively engage in discussions and share your opinions constructively.
• Your professionalism is a model for others.
• Your ability to quickly adapt to changes is commendable.
• Your work exemplifies your passion for excellence.
• Your desire to learn and grow is inspirational.
• Your excellent organizational skills are a valuable asset.
• You actively seek opportunities to contribute to the team’s success.
• Your willingness to help others is truly appreciated.
• Your presentation was both informative and engaging.
• You exhibit great patience and perseverance in your work.
• Your ability to navigate complex situations is impressive.
• Your strategic thinking has contributed to our success.
• Your accountability in your work is commendable.
• Your ability to motivate others is admirable.
• Your reliability has contributed significantly to the team’s success.
• Your enthusiasm for your work is contagious.
• Your diplomatic approach to resolving conflict is commendable.
• Your ability to persevere despite setbacks is truly inspiring.
• Your ability to build strong relationships with clients is impressive.
• Your ability to prioritize tasks is invaluable to our team.
• Your work consistently demonstrates your commitment to quality.
• Your ability to break down complex information is excellent.
• Your ability to think on your feet is greatly appreciated.
• You consistently go above and beyond your job responsibilities.
• Your attention to detail consistently ensures the accuracy of your work.
• Your commitment to our team’s success is truly inspiring.
• Your ability to maintain composure under stress is commendable.
• Your contributions have made our project a success.
• Your confidence and conviction in your work is motivating.
• Thank you for stepping up and taking the lead on this task.
• Your willingness to learn from mistakes is encouraging.
• Your decision-making skills contribute greatly to the success of our team.
• Your communication skills are essential for our team’s effectiveness.
• Your ability to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously is impressive.
• Your passion for your work is infectious.
• Your courage in addressing challenges head-on is remarkable.
• Your ability to prioritize tasks and manage your own workload is commendable.
• You consistently demonstrate strong problem-solving skills.
• Your work reflects your dedication to continuous improvement.
• Your sense of humor helps lighten the mood during stressful times.
• Your ability to take constructive feedback on board is impressive.
• You always find opportunities to learn and develop your skills.
• Your attention to safety protocols is much appreciated.
• Your respect for deadlines is commendable.
• Your focused approach to work is motivating to others.
• You always search for ways to optimize our processes.
• Your commitment to maintaining a high standard of work is inspirational.
• Your excellent customer service skills are a true asset.
• You demonstrate strong initiative in finding solutions to problems.
• Your adaptability to new situations is an inspiration.
• Your ability to manage change effectively is commendable.
• Your proactive communication is appreciated by the entire team.
• Your drive for continuous improvement is infectious.
• Your input consistently elevates the quality of our discussions.
• Your ability to handle both big picture and detailed tasks is impressive.
• Your integrity and honesty are commendable.
• Your ability to take on new responsibilities is truly inspiring.
• Your strong work ethic is setting a high standard for the entire team.

Phrases for Areas of Improvement

• You might consider revisiting the structure of your argument.
• You could work on clarifying your main point.
• Your presentation would benefit from additional examples.
• Perhaps try exploring alternative perspectives.
• It would be helpful to provide more context for your readers.
• You may want to focus on improving the flow of your writing.
• Consider incorporating additional evidence to support your claims.
• You could benefit from refining your writing style.
• It would be useful to address potential counterarguments.
• You might want to elaborate on your conclusion.
• Perhaps consider revisiting your methodology.
• Consider providing a more in-depth analysis.
• You may want to strengthen your introduction.
• Your paper could benefit from additional proofreading.
• You could work on making your topic more accessible to your readers.
• Consider tightening your focus on key points.
• It might be helpful to add more visual aids to your presentation.
• You could strive for more cohesion between your sections.
• Your abstract would benefit from a more concise summary.
• Perhaps try to engage your audience more actively.
• You may want to improve the organization of your thoughts.
• It would be useful to cite more reputable sources.
• Consider emphasizing the relevance of your topic.
• Your argument could benefit from stronger parallels.
• You may want to add transitional phrases for improved readability.
• It might be helpful to provide more concrete examples.
• You could work on maintaining a consistent tone throughout.
• Consider employing a more dynamic vocabulary.
• Your project would benefit from a clearer roadmap.
• Perhaps explore the limitations of your study.
• It would be helpful to demonstrate the impact of your research.
• You could work on the consistency of your formatting.
• Consider refining your choice of images.
• You may want to improve the pacing of your presentation.
• Make an effort to maintain eye contact with your audience.
• Perhaps adding humor or anecdotes would engage your listeners.
• You could work on modulating your voice for emphasis.
• It would be helpful to practice your timing.
• Consider incorporating more interactive elements.
• You might want to speak more slowly and clearly.
• Your project could benefit from additional feedback from experts.
• You might want to consider the practical implications of your findings.
• It would be useful to provide a more user-friendly interface.
• Consider incorporating a more diverse range of sources.
• You may want to hone your presentation to a specific audience.
• You could work on the visual design of your slides.
• Your writing might benefit from improved grammatical accuracy.
• It would be helpful to reduce jargon for clarity.
• You might consider refining your data visualization.
• Perhaps provide a summary of key points for easier comprehension.
• You may want to develop your skills in a particular area.
• Consider attending workshops or trainings for continued learning.
• Your project could benefit from stronger collaboration.
• It might be helpful to seek guidance from mentors or experts.
• You could work on managing your time more effectively.
• It would be useful to set goals and priorities for improvement.
• You might want to identify areas where you can grow professionally.
• Consider setting aside time for reflection and self-assessment.
• Perhaps develop strategies for overcoming challenges.
• You could work on increasing your confidence in public speaking.
• Consider collaborating with others for fresh insights.
• You may want to practice active listening during discussions.
• Be open to feedback and constructive criticism.
• It might be helpful to develop empathy for team members’ perspectives.
• You could work on being more adaptable to change.
• It would be useful to improve your problem-solving abilities.
• Perhaps explore opportunities for networking and engagement.
• You may want to set personal benchmarks for success.
• You might benefit from being more proactive in seeking opportunities.
• Consider refining your negotiation and persuasion skills.
• It would be helpful to enhance your interpersonal communication.
• You could work on being more organized and detail-oriented.
• You may want to focus on strengthening leadership qualities.
• Consider improving your ability to work effectively under pressure.
• Encourage open dialogue among colleagues to promote a positive work environment.
• It might be useful to develop a growth mindset.
• Be open to trying new approaches and techniques.
• Consider building stronger relationships with colleagues and peers.
• It would be helpful to manage expectations more effectively.
• You might want to delegate tasks more efficiently.
• You could work on your ability to prioritize workload effectively.
• It would be useful to review and update processes and procedures regularly.
• Consider creating a more inclusive working environment.
• You might want to seek opportunities to mentor and support others.
• Recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of your team members.
• Consider developing a more strategic approach to decision-making.
• You may want to establish clear goals and objectives for your team.
• It would be helpful to provide regular and timely feedback.
• Consider enhancing your delegation and time-management skills.
• Be open to learning from your team’s diverse skill sets.
• You could work on cultivating a collaborative culture.
• It would be useful to engage in continuous professional development.
• Consider seeking regular feedback from colleagues and peers.
• You may want to nurture your own personal resilience.
• Reflect on areas of improvement and develop an action plan.
• It might be helpful to share your progress with a mentor or accountability partner.
• Encourage your team to support one another’s growth and development.
• Consider celebrating and acknowledging small successes.
• You could work on cultivating effective communication habits.
• Be willing to take calculated risks and learn from any setbacks.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can i phrase constructive feedback in peer evaluations.

To give constructive feedback in peer evaluations, try focusing on specific actions or behaviors that can be improved. Use phrases like “I noticed that…” or “You might consider…” to gently introduce your observations. For example, “You might consider asking for help when handling multiple tasks to improve time management.”

What are some examples of positive comments in peer reviews?

• “Your presentation was engaging and well-organized, making it easy for the team to understand.”
• “You are a great team player, always willing to help others and contribute to the project’s success.”
• “Your attention to detail in documentation has made it easier for the whole team to access information quickly.”

Can you suggest ways to highlight strengths in peer appraisals?

Highlighting strengths in peer appraisals can be done by mentioning specific examples of how the individual excelled or went above and beyond expectations. You can also point out how their strengths positively impacted the team. For instance:

• “Your effective communication skills ensured that everyone was on the same page during the project.”
• “Your creativity in problem-solving helped resolve a complex issue that benefited the entire team.”

What are helpful phrases to use when noting areas for improvement in a peer review?

When noting areas for improvement in a peer review, try using phrases that encourage growth and development. Some examples include:

• “To enhance your time management skills, you might try prioritizing tasks or setting deadlines.”
• “By seeking feedback more often, you can continue to grow and improve in your role.”
• “Consider collaborating more with team members to benefit from their perspectives and expertise.”

How should I approach writing a peer review for a manager differently?

When writing a peer review for a manager, it’s important to focus on their leadership qualities and how they can better support their team. Some suggestions might include:

• “Encouraging more open communication can help create a more collaborative team environment.”
• “By providing clearer expectations or deadlines, you can help reduce confusion and promote productivity.”
• “Consider offering recognition to team members for their hard work, as this can boost motivation and morale.”

What is a diplomatic way to discuss negative aspects in a peer review?

Discussing negative aspects in a peer review requires tact and empathy. Try focusing on behaviors and actions rather than personal attributes, and use phrases that suggest areas for growth. For example:

• “While your dedication to the project is admirable, it might be beneficial to delegate some tasks to avoid burnout.”
• “Improving communication with colleagues can lead to better alignment within the team.”
• “By asking for feedback, you can identify potential blind spots and continue to grow professionally.”
• Flexibility: Performance Review Examples (Rating 1 - 5)
• Job Knowledge Performance Review Phrases (Examples)
• Integrity: Performance Review Examples (Rating 1 - 5)
• 60 Smart Examples: Positive Feedback for Manager in a Review
• 30 Employee Feedback Examples (Positive & Negative)
• Initiative: Performance Review Examples (Rating 1 - 5)

Engaging in Peer Review

There are times when we write in solitary and intend to keep our words private. However, in many cases, we use writing as a way of communicating. We send messages, present and explain ideas, share information, and make arguments. One way to improve the effectiveness of this written communication is through peer-review.

What is Peer-Review?

In the most general of terms, peer-review is the act of having another writer read what you have written and respond in terms of its effectiveness. This reader attempts to identify the writing's strengths and weaknesses, and then suggests strategies for revising it. The hope is that not only will the specific piece of writing be improved, but that future writing attempts will also be more successful. Peer-review happens with all types of writing, at any stage of the process, and with all levels of writers.

Sometimes peer-review is called a writing workshop.

What is a Writing Workshop?

Peer-review sessions are sometimes called writing workshops. For example, students in a writing class might bring a draft of some writing that they are working on to share with either a single classmate or a group, bringing as many copies of the draft as they will need. There is usually a worksheet to fill out or a set questions for each peer-review reader to answer about the piece of writing. The writer might also request that their readers pay special attention to places where he or she would like specific help. An entire class can get together after reading and responding to discuss the writing as a group, or a single writer and reader can privately discuss the response, or the response can be written and shared in that way only.

Whether peer-review happens in a classroom setting or not, there are some common guidelines to follow.

Common Guidelines for Peer-Review

While peer-review is used in multiple contexts, there are some common guidelines to follow in any peer-review situation.

If You are the Writer

If you are the writer, think of peer-review as a way to test how well your writing is working. Keep an open mind and be prepared for criticism. Even the best writers have room for improvement. Even so, it is still up to you whether or not to take the peer-review reader's advice. If more than one person reads for you, you might receive conflicting responses, but don't panic. Consider each response and decide for yourself if you should make changes and what those changes will be. Not all the advice you get will be good, but learning to make revision choices based on the response is part of becoming a better writer.

If You are the Reader

As a peer-review reader, you will have an opportunity to practice your critical reading skills while at the same time helping the writer improve their writing skills. Specifically, you will want to do as follows:

Read the draft through once

Start by reading the draft through once, beginning to end, to get a general sense of the essay as a whole. Don't write on the draft yet. Use a piece of scratch paper to make notes if needed.

Write a summary

After an initial reading, it is sometimes helpful to write a short summary. A well written essay should be easy to summarize, so if writing a summary is difficult, try to determine why and share that with the writer. Also, if your understanding of the writer's main idea(s) turns out to be different from what the writer intended, that will be a place they can focus their revision efforts.

Focus on large issues

Focus your review on the larger writing issues. For example, the misplacement of a few commas is less important than the reader's ability to understand the main point of the essay. And yet, if you do notice a recurring problem with grammar or spelling, especially to the extent that it interferes with your ability to follow the essay, make sure to mention it.

Be constructive

Be constructive with your criticisms. A comment such as "This paragraph was boring" isn't helpful. Remember, this writer is your peer, so treat him/her with the respect and care that they deserve. Explain your responses. "I liked this part" or "This section doesn't work" isn't enough. Keep in mind that you are trying to help the writer revise, so give him/her enough information to be able to understand your responses. Point to specific places that show what you mean. As much as possible, don't criticize something without also giving the writer some suggestion for a possible solution. Be specific and helpful.

Be positive

Don't focus only on the things that aren't working, but also point out the things that are.

With these common guidelines in mind, here are some specific questions that are useful when doing peer-review.

Questions to Use

When doing peer-review, there are different ways to focus a response. You can use questions that are about the qualities of an essay or the different parts of an essay.

Questions to Ask about the Qualities of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the qualities of an essay. Such qualities would be:

Organization

• Is there a clearly stated purpose/objective?
• Are there effective transitions?
• Are the introduction and conclusion focused on the main point of the essay?
• As a reader, can you easily follow the writer's flow of ideas?
• Is each paragraph focused on a single idea?
• At any point in the essay, do you feel lost or confused?
• Do any of the ideas/paragraphs seem out of order, too early or too late to be as effective as they could?

Development and Support

• Is each main point/idea made by the writer clearly developed and explained?
• Is the support/evidence for each point/idea persuasive and appropriate?
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?
• Is all evidence adequately cited?
• Are the topic and tone of the essay appropriate for the audience?
• Are the sentences and word choices varied?

Grammar and Mechanics

• Does the writer use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling?
• Are there any issues with any of these elements that make the writing unreadable or confusing?

Revision Strategy Suggestions

• What are two or three main revision suggestions that you have for the writer?

Questions to Ask about the Parts of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the parts of an essay. Such parts would be:

Introduction

• Is there an introduction?
• Is it effective?
• Is it concise?
• Is it interesting?
• Does the introduction give the reader a sense of the essay's objective and entice the reader to read on?
• Does it meet the objective stated in the introduction?
• Does it stay focused on this objective or are there places it strays?
• Is it organized logically?
• Is each idea thoroughly explained and supported with good evidence?
• Are there transitions and are they effective?
• Is there a conclusion?
• Does it work?

Peer-Review Online

Peer-review doesn't happen only in classrooms or in face-to-face situations. A writer can share a text with peer-review readers in the context of a Web classroom. In this context, the writer's text and the reader's response are shared electronically using file-sharing, e-mail attachments, or discussion forums/message boards.

When responding to a document in these ways, the specific method changes because the reader can't write directly on the document like they would if it were a paper copy. It is even more important in this context to make comments and suggestions clear by thoroughly explaining and citing specific examples from the text.

When working with an electronic version of a text, such as an e-mail attachment, the reader can open the document or copy/paste the text in Microsoft Word, or other word-processing software. In this way, the reader can add his or her comments, save and then send the revised document back to the writer, either through e-mail, file sharing, or posting in a discussion forum.

The reader's overall comments can be added either before or after the writer's section of text. If all the comments will be included at the end of the original text, it is still a good idea to make a note in the beginning directing the writer's attention to the end of the document. Specific comments can be inserted into appropriate places in the document, made clear by using all capital letters enclosed with parenthesis. Some word-processing software also has a highlighting feature that might be helpful.

Benefits of Peer Review

Peer-review has a reflexive benefit. Both the writer and the peer-review reader have something to gain. The writer profits from the feedback they get. In the act of reviewing, the peer-review reader further develops his/her own revision skills. Critically reading the work of another writer enables a reader to become more able to identify, diagnose, and solve some of their own writing issues.

Peer Review Worksheets

Here are a few worksheets that you can print out and use for a peer-review session.

Parts of an Essay

• My audience is:
• My purpose is:
• The main point I want to make in this text is:
• One or two things that I would appreciate your comments on are:
• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text. Do you agree with the writer's assessment of the text's main idea?
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Refer to specific places in their text, citing examples of what you mean. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is it effective? Concise? Interesting?
• Is there a conclusion? Does it work?

Finally, what are two or three revision suggestions you have for the writer?

Qualities of an Essay

• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text.
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?Is all evidence adequately cited?

Salahub, Jill . (2007). Peer Review. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=43

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Receive and Respond to Peer Review Feedback

A thoughtful, thorough approach to your revision response now can save you time in further rounds of review.

You’ve just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it’s time to revise. Set out a clear plan for your response to keep yourself on-track and ensure edits don’t fall through the cracks.

Keep Calm and Take Stock

From time to time, you’re going to get frustrating comments. Even though it may sometimes feel like the reviewers haven’t spent enough time with your work, are overly-critical, or lack the right expertise, remember that a lot can get lost in translation. Always start by assuming reviewers have the best intentions.

Bear in mind that the goal of peer review feedback is to verify and strengthen your work so that it  is ultimately a more effective communication. Reviewers are a good representation of the journal’s general readership and their reactions can help you craft a better, clearer publication for your audience.

After reviewing your manuscript comments, it might be helpful to take a step back and clear your head. When you come back to it, ask yourself: what are the fundamental issues the reviewer wants me to address?

Set a Plan for Revisions and Response

Don’t lose track of important changes you intend to make. Making a plan for revising and crafting your response to the reviewers can help you organize your steps, get a better idea of what work needs to be done, and make the process run more smoothly.

1. Start a list of essential vs. unessential requests to prioritize your work.

The editor’s note may help you see which edits are required to meet the journal’s standards. Don’t disregard the unessential list, however. While these edits may be “nice to have” rather than “required,” they can strengthen your work for that journal’s typical audience. If you have time and resources to tackle these, do so. 

2. Decide whether you’ll need time to conduct additional experiments.

Don’t shy away from providing additional data. If you already have the data requested by the reviewers, but don’t feel it fits the scope of your work, you can include these in your response as a show of good faith, and indicate in your letter why you think they should be left off the published article. If you need extra time for your revision to complete the additional research, make sure you let your editor know.

3. Make sure you have a system for responding to each comment, and demonstrating your changes.

This might sound tedious, but a clear, point-by-point response can save you time in subsequent rounds of review. Use track changes to show your edits and/or indicate line numbers in your response where the requested change can be found in the manuscript.  

4. Don’t ignore any comments .

Even if you’ve decided not to make a change, your response to the reviewers should explain why you’ve done so. You may need to provide additional evidence as to why this isn’t relevant. That’s OK. Your goal here is to make sure reviewers have enough clarity of your work to understand your thinking. Without an adequate reason, reviewers may request the same change in subsequent rounds of review.

Tip: Build in a little extra time for a final review

Once you’ve updated and revised your manuscript, give yourself a little lee way—let the paper rest for a day or two and give it another read, checking to make sure that your edits make sense with the rest of the paper. For more tips, visit our guide to editing your work.

Conflicting Feedback

It’s almost inevitable that you will encounter reviewers who disagree on a course of action, or even an editor who disagrees with the reviewers. Here are some tips for navigating each case:

Reviewer vs Edito r

In general, the editor should be able to provide commentary more closely aligned with the journal’s scope and editorial policies. If the editor disagrees on a suggested edit, you should cite the editor’s comments in your response to the reviewers.

Reviewer vs Reviewer 

• When two reviewers offer conflicting advice, your editor may be able to provide guidance as to the journal’s standards, and which course of action they feel is more appropriate. As before, be sure to cite the editor’s advice in your response.
• If the editor hasn’t provided clarity in their response, ask a colleague familiar with your work and check in with your coauthors for a second opinion. 
• Rely on yourself. Ultimately, the decision to make any change is up to you. Provide a clear and defensible response to reviewers, citing your reasons for complying or not complying with a suggested edit, so that the reviewers and the editor understand your decision.  

Writing Your Response

Include a cover letter. Keep this short, but do call out important information about your changes and any points you wish to clarify further. If you found reviewer advice particularly helpful, thank them for their thoughtful commentary! Here’s a quick template you can follow:

Thank you for taking the time to review and comment upon our manuscript, %%Manuscript Number%%, %%Title%%. We found the advice constructive and have incorporated many of the suggestions into our revision… We’ve responded to each comment individually below and would like to draw your attention to…. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments… Sincerely, %%Name%%

You can also find a number of full  cover letter examples online for inspiration — like this one from the APA Style blog. 

Assume both the editor and reviewers will see everything that you write. If you’ve submitted to a journal with an open peer review process, your readers could see your comments as well

Keep your responses clear, unemotional, and easy to follow. Respond in-line to every comment, indicating line numbers where a change can be found

Reviewer Comment 1 : Suggestion for additional charts. Response: We have not added an additional chart as the requested data can already be found in Figure 1. Instead, we’ve adjusted the colors and weighting to make this line clearer. Reviewer Comment 2: Suggested clarification or correction. Response : We have made this change in line 44.

Write your response, take a break, and come back to it. Re-read your comments and make sure they come across calm and professional. If you’re struggling to come up with the right way to say something, try these reviewer response examples for inspiration. 

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

"Culture and morale changed overnight! In under 2 months, we’ve had over 2,000 kudos sent and 80%+ engagement across all employees."

President at M&H

Recognition and Rewards all inside Slack or Microsoft Teams

Free To Try. No Credit Card Required.

Celebrate wins together and regularly for all to see

Redeem coins for gift cards, company rewards & donations

Start a weekly recognition habit with automatic reminders

Automatically celebrate birthdays and work anniversaries

10x your response rate, instantly with surveys inside Slack/Teams

Gather continuous, real-time feedback and insights

Discover insights from recognition

Have questions? Send us a message

How teams are building culture with employee recognition and rewards

Advice and answers from the Matter team

Helpful videos to fully experience Matter

Peer Review Examples (+14 Phrases to Use)

‍ Table of Contents:

Peer review feedback examples, what are the benefits of peer review feedback examples, what are peer review feedback examples, 5 key parts of good peer review examples, 14 examples of performance review phrases, how do you give peer review feedback to remote teams, the benefits of a feedback culture, how to implement a strong feedback culture.

A peer review is a type of evaluative feedback. It focuses on the strengths and areas of improvement for yourself, your team members, and even the organization as a whole. This form of evaluation can benefit all parties involved, helping to build self-awareness and grow in new ways that we might not have realized before. Of course, the best examples of peer review feedback are those that are well-received and effective in the workplace, which we will go over in the next section.

As mentioned, peer review feedback is a great way to identify your strengths and weaknesses and those of others. The benefits are two-fold: it helps you grow in new ways that may have been difficult for you before, while also making sure everyone involved feels confident about their abilities moving forward.

For instance, organizations with robust feedback cultures can close any gaps that hinder their performance and seize business opportunities whenever they present themselves. This dual benefit gives them competitive advantages that allow them to grow, along with a more positive workplace. Leading companies that enjoy these types of advantages include Cargill, Netflix, and Google. Peer review feedback can also be a great tool to use for conducting your annual performance reviews. They give managers visibility and insights that might not be possible otherwise. The feedback can help you better understand how your employees view their performance, as well as what they think the company's expectations are of them. This opportunity is especially helpful for those who work remotely—it allows managers to see things that might be missed otherwise.

For example, if an employee works from home often or telecommutes frequently, it can be more difficult for managers to get a sense of how they are doing. This is where peer review feedback comes in—if their peers notice issues that need attention, this provides the manager with valuable insights that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Everyone must be on the same page about what exactly it is they want from these sessions and how their employees will benefit from receiving them.

A Gallup poll revealed that organizations that give their employees regular feedback have turnover rates that are almost 15% lower than for those employees that didn't receive any. This statistic indicates that regular reviews, including peer reviews, are important. However, so is giving the right kind of peer review feedback.

As such, when you have a peer review session, think about some good examples of the type of feedback that might be beneficial for both parties. These would be the relevant peer review examples you want to use for your organization.

One example would be to discuss ways in which the employee’s performance may have been exemplary when you give them their peer review feedback forms . This conversation gives the person being reviewed an idea about how well they're doing and where their strengths lie in the form of positive feedback. 

On the other hand, it also helps them know there is room for improvement where they may not have realized it before in the form of negative feedback.

Another example would be to discuss how you might improve how the person being reviewed conducts themselves on a day-to-day basis. Again, this action can help someone realize how their performance can be improved and provide them with suggestions that they might not have thought of before.

For example, you may notice that a team member tends to talk more than is necessary during meetings or wastes time by doing unnecessary tasks when other pressing matters are at hand. This type of negative feedback would allow the person receiving it to know what areas they need to work on and how they can improve themselves.

As mentioned previously, peer reviews are a great way of giving an employee concrete suggestions for the areas in which they need improvement, as well as those where their performance is exemplary.

To ensure that your team feels valued and confident moving forward, you should give them the best examples of peer review feedback possible. The following are five examples of what constitutes good peer review feedback:

1. Use anonymity. Keeping them anonymous so that the employee review makes workers feel comfortable with the content and don't feel any bias has entered the review process.

2. Scheduling them frequently enough. A good employee experience with peer reviews involves scheduling them often enough so that no one has an unwelcome surprise come annual or biannual performance appraisal time.

3. Keep them objective & constructive. Keep peer review feedback objective and constructive—your goal is to help improve the peers you're reviewing so they can continue to do an even better job than before!

4. Having key points to work on. Ask questions such as: what is the goal? And what does the company want people to get out of each session?

5. The right people giving the peer review . Personnel familiar with the employee's work should be the ones doing the employee evaluation, rating the reviewer's performance, and providing peer feedback.

You can use the following positive performance appraisal phrases to recognize and coach your employees for anything from regularly scheduled peer reviews to biannual and annual appraisals:

• "I can always count on you to..." ‍
• "You are a dependable employee who meets all deadlines." ‍
• "Your customer service is excellent. You make everyone feel welcome and comfortable, no matter how busy things get." ‍
• "The accounting work that you do for our team helps us out in the long run." ‍
• "I appreciate your helpfulness when it comes to training new employees. You always seem willing to take some time out of your day, even though you're busy with other tasks, to show them how we do things here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "It's so nice to see you staying on top of your work. You never miss a deadline, and that is very important here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "I can always count on you when I need something done immediately." ‍
• "Your communication skills are exceptional, and I appreciate the way you always get your point across clearly." ‍
• "You are always willing to lend an ear if someone needs help or has a question about something. You're great at being the go-to person when people need advice." ‍
• "I appreciate your ability to anticipate our customers' needs."

Negative performance review phrases can be helpful if handled the right way and often contribute to improving the employee's performance. 

Here are some examples of effective negative performance review phrases you can use:

• "You seem to struggle with following the company's processes. I would like to see you get better at staying on top of what needs to be done and getting it done on time." ‍
• "I'm concerned that your work quality has slipped lately. You're still meeting deadlines, but some of your work seems rushed or incomplete. I want to make sure that you're giving everything the attention it deserves." ‍
• "I noticed that you've been getting a lot of customer complaints lately. Is there anything going on? Maybe we can work together and come up with some solutions for how things could be better handled in the future?" ‍
• "You seem overwhelmed right now, and it's affecting your work quality. I want to help you figure out how we can better distribute the workload so that you're not feeling like this anymore."

When giving peer review feedback to remote teams, it is essential for everyone involved that the employee being reviewed feels comfortable and respected. And whether a peer or direct report gives the remote employee a review, the most effective way to ensure this happens is by providing open communication and constructive feedback throughout the process.

However, when you work remotely, it can be difficult to get the opportunity for peer feedback. However, there are ways of ensuring that such a process is still beneficial and productive.

The following are some examples of how to go about giving effective peer review feedback when working virtually:

• Take advantage of webcams or video conferencing to make sure that you can see the employee's facial expressions and monitor body language during a performance review, remote or otherwise. ‍
• Just like with any in-person performance review, it's critical to schedule a regular time for sessions so they don't catch anyone by surprise. ‍
• Make it clear at both your end as well as theirs what the overall goal is—this helps them prepare ahead of time and ensures there are no unforeseen surprises. ‍
• Ensure that you keep the feedback objective with constructive criticism, as this is what will allow them to improve their performance in a way that they can take advantage of immediately. Include all these key points in your company peer review templates also. ‍
• Be prepared for these sessions by having a list of key points you want to cover with your peer reviewer—this helps guide the conversation while ensuring no important points are overlooked.

When employees enjoy their work, understand their goals, and know the values and competencies of the job, job satisfaction increases, along with their performance. In addition, the link between productivity and effective feedback is well established. For instance, 69% of workers said they would work harder if their efforts were recognized, according to LinkedIn.

Continuous and regularly scheduled performance appraisal feedback helps with employee development, clarifies expectations, aligns goals, and motivates staff (check out our article Peer Review Feedback to find out why peer feedback is so essential), establishing a positive workplace. Lastly, a workplace that dedicates itself to motivating people to be better will improve employee engagement and the levels of performance.

If you haven't implemented a culture for using feedback yet, there are several effective ways to go about it. One good way to kick things off is to first identify teams or some other similar organizational unit and have them experiment with the social feedback system.

While the frequency of peer reviews should be given every three to four weeks, or even at the end of a project sprint , the cycles for building a strong feedback culture can be quarterly or monthly, depending on your preferences and operations.

After the three cycles are finalized, you typically have built up enough feedback information to start the organization on its path to a strong feedback culture.

Knowing these peer review feedback examples and tips on giving them to remote teams will help you become more comfortable with this type of evaluative discussion. It can be difficult at first, but remember that the benefits are worth it! And remember: when giving peer review feedback, make sure you keep each session objective. This helps ensure they're constructive and that both parties walk away feeling as though they've learned a lot from them.

Want to keep that morale sky-high during Feedback Friday and the peer review process? If so, be sure to check out Matter , with features that allow you to give public Kudos all inside Slack.

Start Employee Recognition, Rewards, & Surveys

Recognition, Rewards & Surveys all in Slack or Teams

• Performance Management

Peer Review Examples: Powerful Phrases You Can Use

• October 30, 2023

The blog is tailored for HR professionals looking to set up and improve peer review feedback within their organization. Share the article with your employees as a guide to help them understand how to craft insightful peer review feedback.

Effective employee performance evaluation plays a pivotal role in both personal growth and the maintenance of a productive, harmonious work environment. When considering the comprehensive perspective of 360-degree evaluation, peer review feedback emerges as a crucial element. In this article, we’ll explore the importance of peer review feedback and equip you with powerful peer review examples to facilitate the process.

Peer review feedback is the practice of colleagues and co-workers assessing and providing meaningful feedback on each other’s performance. It is a valuable instrument that helps organizations foster professional development, teamwork, and continuous improvement.

Peoplebox lets you conduct effective peer reviews within minutes. You can customize feedback, use tailored surveys, and seamlessly integrate it with your collaboration tools. It’s a game-changer for boosting development and collaboration in your team.

Why are Peer Reviews Important?

Here are some compelling reasons why peer review feedback is so vital:

Broader Perspective: Peer feedback offers a well-rounded view of an employee’s performance. Colleagues witness their day-to-day efforts and interactions, providing a more comprehensive evaluation compared to just a supervisor’s perspective.

Skill Enhancement: It serves as a catalyst for skill enhancement. Constructive feedback from peers highlights areas of improvement and offers opportunities for skill development.

Encourages Accountability: Peer review fosters a culture of accountability . Knowing that one’s work is subject to review by peers can motivate individuals to perform at their best consistently.

Team Cohesion: It strengthens team cohesion by promoting open communication. and constructive communication. Teams that actively engage in peer feedback often develop a stronger sense of unity and shared purpose.

Fair and Unbiased Assessment: By involving colleagues, peer review helps ensure a fair and unbiased assessment. It mitigates the potential for supervisor bias and personal favoritism in performance evaluations.

Identifying Blind Spots: Peers can identify blind spots that supervisors may overlook. This means addressing issues at an early stage, preventing them from escalating.

Motivation and Recognition: Positive peer feedback can motivate employees and offer well-deserved recognition for their efforts. Acknowledgment from colleagues can be equally, if not more, rewarding than praise from higher-ups.

Now, let us look at the best practices for giving peer feedback in order to leverage its benefits effectively.

30 Positive Peer Feedback Examples

Now that we’ve established the importance of peer review feedback, the next step is understanding how to use powerful phrases to make the most of this evaluation process.  In this section, we’ll equip you with various examples of phrases to use during peer reviews, making the journey more confident and effective for you and your team .

Must Read: 60+ Self-Evaluation Examples That Can Make You Shine

Peer Review Example on Work Quality

When it comes to recognizing excellence, quality work is often the first on the list. Here are some peer review examples highlighting the work quality:

• “Kudos to Sarah for consistently delivering high-quality reports that never fail to impress both clients and colleagues. Her meticulous attention to detail and creative problem-solving truly set the bar high.”
• “John’s attention to detail and unwavering commitment to excellence make his work a gold standard for the entire team. His consistently high-quality contributions ensure our projects shine.”
• “Alexandra’s dedication to maintaining the project’s quality standards sets a commendable benchmark for the entire department. Her willingness to go the extra mile is a testament to her work ethic and quality focus.”
• “Patrick’s dedication to producing error-free code is a testament to his commitment to work quality. His precise coding and knack for bug spotting make his work truly outstanding.”

Peer Review Examples on Competency and Job-Related Skills

Competency and job-related skills set the stage for excellence. Here’s how you can write a peer review highlighting this particular skill set:

• “Michael’s extensive knowledge and problem-solving skills have been instrumental in overcoming some of our most challenging technical hurdles. His ability to analyze complex issues and find creative solutions is remarkable. Great job, Michael!”
• “Emily’s ability to quickly grasp complex concepts and apply them to her work is truly commendable. Her knack for simplifying the intricate is a gift that benefits our entire team.”
• “Daniel’s expertise in data analysis has significantly improved the efficiency of our decision-making processes. His ability to turn data into actionable insights is an invaluable asset to the team.”
• “Sophie’s proficiency in graphic design has consistently elevated the visual appeal of our projects. Her creative skills and artistic touch add a unique, compelling dimension to our work.”

Peer Review Sample on Leadership Skills

Leadership ability extends beyond a mere title; it’s a living embodiment of vision and guidance, as seen through these exceptional examples:

• “Under Lisa’s leadership, our team’s morale and productivity have soared, a testament to her exceptional leadership skills and hard work. Her ability to inspire, guide, and unite the team in the right direction is truly outstanding.”
• “James’s ability to inspire and lead by example makes him a role model for anyone aspiring to be a great leader. His approachability and strong sense of ethics create an ideal leadership model.”
• “Rebecca’s effective delegation and strategic vision have been the driving force behind our project’s success. Her ability to set clear objectives, give valuable feedback, and empower team members is truly commendable.”
• “Victoria’s leadership style fosters an environment of trust and innovation, enabling our team to flourish in a great way. Her encouragement of creativity and openness to diverse ideas is truly inspiring.”

Feedback on Teamwork and Collaboration Skills

Teamwork is where individual brilliance becomes collective success. Here are some peer review examples highlighting teamwork:

• “Mark’s ability to foster a collaborative environment is infectious; his team-building skills unite us all. His open-mindedness and willingness to listen to new ideas create a harmonious workspace.”
• “Charles’s commitment to teamwork has a ripple effect on the entire department, promoting cooperation and synergy. His ability to bring out the best in the rest of the team is truly remarkable.”
• “David’s talent for bringing diverse perspectives together enhances the creativity and effectiveness of our group projects. His ability to unite us under a common goal fosters a sense of belonging.”

Peer Review Examples on Professionalism and Work Ethics

Professionalism and ethical conduct define a thriving work culture. Here’s how you can write a peer review highlighting work ethics:

• “Rachel’s unwavering commitment to deadlines and ethical work practices is a model for us all. Her dedication to punctuality and ethics contributes to a culture of accountability.”
• “Timothy consistently exhibits the highest level of professionalism, ensuring our clients receive impeccable service. His courtesy and reliability set a standard of excellence.”
• “Daniel’s punctuality and commitment to deadlines set a standard of professionalism we should all aspire to. His sense of responsibility is an example to us all.”
• “Olivia’s unwavering dedication to ethical business practices makes her a trustworthy and reliable colleague. Her ethical principles create an atmosphere of trust and respect within our team, leading to a more positive work environment.”

Feedback on Mentoring and Support

Mentoring and support pave the way for future success. Check out these peer review examples focusing on mentoring:

• “Ben’s dedication to mentoring new team members is commendable; his guidance is invaluable to our junior colleagues. His approachability and patience create an environment where learning flourishes.”
• “David’s mentorship has been pivotal in nurturing the talents of several team members beyond his direct report, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. His ability to transfer knowledge is truly outstanding.”
• “Laura’s patient mentorship and continuous support for her colleagues have helped elevate our team’s performance. Her constructive feedback and guidance have made a remarkable difference.”
• “William’s dedication to knowledge sharing and mentoring is a driving force behind our team’s constant learning and growth. His commitment to others’ development is inspiring.”

Peer Review Examples on Communication Skills

Effective communication is the linchpin of harmonious collaboration. Here are some peer review examples to highlight your peer’s communication skills:

• “Grace’s exceptional communication skills ensure clarity and cohesion in our team’s objectives. Her ability to articulate complex ideas in a straightforward manner is invaluable.”
• “Oliver’s ability to convey complex ideas with simplicity greatly enhances our project’s success. His effective communication style fosters a productive exchange of ideas.”
• “Aiden’s proficiency in cross-team communication ensures that our projects move forward efficiently. His ability to bridge gaps in understanding is truly commendable.”

Peer Review Examples on Time Management and Productivity

Time management and productivity are the engines that drive accomplishments. Here are some peer review examples highlighting time management:

• “Ella’s time management is nothing short of exemplary; it sets a benchmark for us all. Her efficient task organization keeps our projects on track.”
• “Robert’s ability to meet deadlines and manage time efficiently significantly contributes to our team’s overall productivity. His time management skills are truly remarkable.”
• “Sophie’s time management skills are a cornerstone of her impressive productivity, inspiring us all to be more efficient. Her ability to juggle multiple tasks is impressive.”
• “Liam’s time management skills are key to his consistently high productivity levels. His ability to organize work efficiently is an example for all of us to follow.”

Though these positive feedback examples are valuable, it’s important to recognize that there will be instances when your team needs to convey constructive or negative feedback. In the upcoming section, we’ll present 40 examples of constructive peer review feedback. Keep reading!

40 Constructive Peer Review Feedback

Receiving peer review feedback, whether positive or negative, presents a valuable chance for personal and professional development. Let’s explore some examples your team can employ to provide constructive feedback , even in situations where criticism is necessary, with a focus on maintaining a supportive and growth-oriented atmosphere.

Constructive Peer Review Feedback on Work Quality

• “I appreciate John’s meticulous attention to detail, which enhances our projects. However, I noticed a few minor typos in his recent report. To maintain an impeccable standard, I’d suggest dedicating more effort to proofreading.”
• “Sarah’s research is comprehensive, and her insights are invaluable. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I recommend distilling her conclusions to their most essential points.”
• “Michael’s coding skills are robust, but for the sake of team collaboration, I’d suggest that he provides more detailed comments within the code to enhance readability and consistency.”
• “Emma’s creative design concepts are inspiring, yet consistency in her chosen color schemes across projects could further bolster brand recognition.”
• “David’s analytical skills are thorough and robust, but it might be beneficial to present data in a more reader-friendly format to enhance overall comprehension.”
• “I’ve observed Megan’s solid technical skills, which are highly proficient. To further her growth, I recommend taking on more challenging projects to expand her expertise.”
• “Robert’s industry knowledge is extensive and impressive. To become a more well-rounded professional, I’d suggest he focuses on honing his client relationship and communication skills.”
• “Alice’s project management abilities are impressive, and she’s demonstrated an aptitude for handling complexity. I’d recommend she refines her risk assessment skills to excel further in mitigating potential issues.”
• “Daniel’s presentation skills are excellent, and his reports are consistently informative. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in terms of interpreting data and distilling it into actionable insights.”
• “Laura’s sales techniques are effective, and she consistently meets her targets. I encourage her to invest time in honing her negotiation skills for even greater success in securing deals and partnerships.”

Peer Review Examples on Leadership Skills

• “I’ve noticed James’s commendable decision-making skills. However, to foster a more inclusive and collaborative environment, I’d suggest he be more open to input from team members during the decision-making process.”
• “Sophia’s delegation is efficient, and her team trusts her leadership. To further inspire the team, I’d suggest she share credit more generously and acknowledge the collective effort.”
• “Nathan’s vision and strategic thinking are clear and commendable. Enhancing his conflict resolution skills is suggested to promote a harmonious work environment and maintain team focus.”
• “Olivia’s accountability is much appreciated. I’d encourage her to strengthen her mentoring approach to develop the team’s potential even further and secure a strong professional legacy.”
• “Ethan’s adaptability is an asset that brings agility to the team. Cultivating a more motivational leadership style is recommended to uplift team morale and foster a dynamic work environment.”

Peer Review Examples on Teamwork and Collaboration

• “Ava’s collaboration is essential to the team’s success. She should consider engaging more actively in group discussions to contribute her valuable insights.”
• “Liam’s teamwork is exemplary, but he could motivate peers further by sharing credit more openly and recognizing their contributions.”
• “Chloe’s flexibility in teamwork is invaluable. To become an even more effective team player, she might invest in honing her active listening skills.”
• “William’s contributions to group projects are consistently valuable. To maximize his impact, I suggest participating in inter-departmental collaborations and fostering cross-functional teamwork.”
• “Zoe’s conflict resolution abilities create a harmonious work environment. Expanding her ability to mediate conflicts and find mutually beneficial solutions is advised to enhance team cohesion.”
• “Noah’s punctuality is an asset to the team. To maintain professionalism consistently, he should adhere to deadlines with unwavering dedication, setting a model example for peers.”
• “Grace’s integrity and ethical standards are admirable. To enhance professionalism further, I’d recommend that she maintain a higher level of discretion in discussing sensitive matters.”
• “Logan’s work ethics are strong, and his commitment is evident. Striving for better communication with colleagues regarding project updates is suggested, ensuring everyone remains well-informed.”
• “Sophie’s reliability is appreciated. Maintaining a high level of attention to confidentiality when handling sensitive information would enhance her professionalism.”
• “Jackson’s organizational skills are top-notch. Upholding professionalism by maintaining a tidy and organized workspace is recommended.”

Peer Review Feedback Examples on Mentoring and Support

• “Aiden provides invaluable mentoring to junior team members. He should consider investing even more time in offering guidance and support to help them navigate their professional journeys effectively.”
• “Harper’s commendable support to peers is noteworthy. She should develop coaching skills to maximize their growth, ensuring their development matches their potential.”
• “Samuel’s patience in teaching is a valuable asset. He should tailor support to individual learning styles to enhance their understanding and retention of key concepts.”
• “Ella’s mentorship plays a pivotal role in the growth of colleagues. She should expand her role in offering guidance for long-term career development, helping them set and achieve their professional goals.”
• “Benjamin’s exceptional helpfulness fosters a more supportive atmosphere where everyone can thrive. He should encourage team members to seek assistance when needed.”
• “Mia’s communication skills are clear and effective. To cater to different audience types, she should use more varied communication channels to convey her message more comprehensively.”
• “Lucas’s ability to articulate ideas is commendable, and his verbal communication is strong. He should polish non-verbal communication to ensure that his body language aligns with his spoken message.”
• “Evelyn’s appreciated active listening skills create strong relationships with colleagues. She should foster stronger negotiation skills for client interactions, ensuring both parties are satisfied with the outcomes.”
• “Jack’s presentation skills are excellent. He should elevate written communication to match the quality of verbal presentations, offering more comprehensive and well-structured documentation.”
• “Avery’s clarity in explaining complex concepts is valued by colleagues. She should develop persuasive communication skills to enhance her ability to secure project proposals and buy-in from stakeholders.”

Feedback on Time Management and Productivity

• “Isabella’s efficient time management skills contribute to the team’s success. She should explore time-tracking tools to further optimize her workflow and maximize her efficiency.”
• “Henry’s remarkable productivity sets a high standard. He should maintain a balanced approach to tasks to prevent burnout and ensure sustainable long-term performance.”
• “Luna’s impressive task prioritization and strategic time allocation should be fine-tuned with goal-setting techniques to ensure consistent productivity aligned with objectives.”
• “Leo’s great deadline adherence is commendable. He should incorporate short breaks into the schedule to enhance productivity and focus, allowing for the consistent meeting of high standards.”
• “Mila’s multitasking abilities are a valuable skill. She should strive to implement regular time-blocking sessions into the daily routine to further enhance time management capabilities.”

Do’s and Don’t of Peer Review Feedback

Peer review feedback can be extremely helpful for intellectual growth and professional development. Engaging in this process with thoughtfulness and precision can have a profound impact on both the reviewer and the individual seeking feedback.

However, there are certain do’s and don’ts that must be observed to ensure that the feedback is not only constructive but also conducive to a positive and productive learning environment.

The Do’s of Peer Review Feedback:

Empathize and Relate : Put yourself in the shoes of the person receiving the feedback. Recognize the effort and intention behind their work, and frame your comments with sensitivity.

Ground Feedback in Data : Base your feedback on concrete evidence and specific examples from the work being reviewed. This not only adds credibility to your comments but also helps the recipient understand precisely where improvements are needed.

Clear and Concise Writing : Express your thoughts in a clear and straightforward manner. Avoid jargon or ambiguous language that may lead to misinterpretation.

Offer Constructive Criticism : Focus on providing feedback that can guide improvement. Instead of simply pointing out flaws, suggest potential solutions or alternatives.

Highlight Strength s: Acknowledge and commend the strengths in the work. Recognizing what’s done well can motivate the individual to build on their existing skills.

The Don’ts of Peer Review Feedback:

Avoid Ambiguity : Vague or overly general comments such as “It’s not good” do not provide actionable guidance. Be specific in your observations.

Refrain from Personal Attacks : Avoid making the feedback personal or overly critical. Concentrate on the work and its improvement, not on the individual.

Steer Clear of Subjective Opinions : Base your feedback on objective criteria and avoid opinions that may not be universally applicable.

Resist Overloading with Suggestions : While offering suggestions for improvement is important, overwhelming the recipient with a laundry list of changes can be counterproductive.

Don’t Skip Follow-Up : Once you’ve provided feedback, don’t leave the process incomplete. Follow up and engage in a constructive dialogue to ensure that the feedback is understood and applied effectively.

Remember that the art of giving peer review feedback is a valuable skill, and when done right, it can foster professional growth, foster collaboration, and inspire continuous improvement. This is where performance management software like Peoplebox come into play.

Start Collecting Peer Review Feedback On Peoplebox 

In a world where the continuous improvement of your workforce is paramount, harnessing the potential of peer review feedback is a game-changer. Peoplebox offers a suite of powerful features that revolutionize performance management, simplifying the alignment of people with business goals and driving success. Want to experience it first hand? Take a quick tour of our product.

Through Peoplebox, you can effortlessly establish peer reviews, customizing key aspects such as:

• Allowing the reviewee to select their peers
• Seeking managerial approval for chosen peers to mitigate bias
• Determining the number of peers eligible for review, and more.

And the best part? Peoplebox lets you do all this from right within Slack.

Peer Review Feedback Template That You Can Use Right Away

Still on the fence about using software for performance reviews? Here’s a quick ready-to-use peer review template you can use to kickstart the peer review process.

Download the Free Peer Review Feedback Form here.

If you ever reconsider and are looking for a more streamlined approach to handle 360 feedback, give Peoplebox a shot!

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is peer review feedback important.

Peer review feedback provides a well-rounded view of employee performance, fosters skill enhancement, encourages accountability, strengthens team cohesion, ensures fair assessment, and identifies blind spots early on.

How does peer review feedback benefit employees?

Peer review feedback offers employees valuable insights for growth, helps them identify areas for improvement, provides recognition for their efforts, and fosters a culture of collaboration and continuous learning.

What are some best practices for giving constructive peer feedback?

Best practices include grounding feedback in specific examples, offering both praise and areas for improvement, focusing on actionable suggestions, maintaining professionalism, and ensuring feedback is clear and respectful.

What role does HR software like Peoplebox play in peer review feedback?

HR software like Peoplebox streamlines the peer review process by allowing customizable feedback, integration with collaboration tools like Slack, easy selection of reviewers, and providing templates and tools for effective feedback.

How can HR professionals promote a culture of feedback and openness in their organization?

HR professionals can promote a feedback culture by leading by example, providing training on giving and receiving feedback, recognizing and rewarding constructive feedback, creating safe spaces for communication, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

Table of Contents

What’s Next?

Get Peoplebox Demo

Get a 30-min. personalized demo of our OKR, Performance Management and People Analytics Platform Schedule Now

Take Product Tour

Watch a product tour to see how Peoplebox makes goals alignment, performance management and people analytics seamless. Take a product tour

Subscribe to our blog & newsletter

Popular Categories

• One on Ones
• People Analytics
• Employee Engagement
• Strategy Execution
• Remote Work

Recent Blogs

The Essential Guide to Workforce Analytics

35 Core Competencies Examples

A Guide to Building Effective HR Dashboards

• OKRs (Aligned Goals)
• Performance Reviews
• 360 Degree Employee Reviews
• Performance Reviews in Slack
• 1:1 Meetings
• Business Reviews
• Automated Engagement Survey
• Anonymous Messaging
• Engagement Insights
• Integrations
• Why Peoplebox
• Our Customers
• Customer Success Stories
• Product Tours
• Peoplebox Analytics Talk
• The Peoplebox Pulse Newsletter
• OKR Podcast
• OKR Examples
• One-on-one-meeting questions
• Performance Review Templates
• Request Demo
• Help Center
• Careers (🚀 We are hiring)
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• GDPR Compliance
• Data Processing Addendum
• Responsible Disclosure
• Cookies Policy

Share this blog

50 Great Peer Review Examples: Sample Phrases + Scenarios

Peer review is a concept that has multiple different applications and definitions. Depending on your field, the definition of peer review can change greatly.

In the workplace, the meaning of peer review or peer feedback is that it is simply the input of a peer or colleague on another peer’s performance, attitude, output, or any other performance metric .

While in the academic world peer review’s definition is the examination of an academic paper by another fellow scholar in the field.

Even in the American legal system , people are judged in front of a jury made up of their peers.

It is clear as day that peer feedback carries a lot of weight and power. The input from someone who has the same experience with you day in and day out is on occasion, more meaningful than the feedback from direct reports or feedback from managers .

So here are 50 peer review examples and sample peer feedback phrases that can help you practice peer-to-peer feedback more effectively!

Table of Contents

Peer Feedback Examples: Offering Peers Constructive Criticism

One of the most difficult types of feedback to offer is constructive criticism. Whether you are a chief people officer or a junior employee, offering someone constructive criticism is a tight rope to walk.

When you are offering constructive criticism to a peer? That difficulty level is doubled. People can take constructive criticism from above or below.

One place where criticism can really sting is when it comes from someone at their level. That is why the peer feedback phrases below can certainly be of help.

Below you will find 10 peer review example phrases that offer constructive feedback to peers:

• “I really appreciate the effort you’ve put into this project, especially your attention to detail in the design phase. I wonder if considering alternative approaches to the user interface might enhance user engagement. Perhaps we could explore some user feedback or current trends in UI design to guide us.”
• “Your presentation had some compelling points, particularly the data analysis section. However, I noticed a few instances where the connection between your arguments wasn’t entirely clear. For example, when transitioning from the market analysis to consumer trends, a clearer linkage could help the audience follow your thought process more effectively.”
• “I see you’ve put a lot of work into developing this marketing strategy, and it shows promise. To address the issue with the target demographic, it might be beneficial to integrate more specific market research data. I can share a few resources on market analysis that could provide some valuable insights for this section.”
• “You’ve done an excellent job balancing different aspects of the project, but I think there’s an opportunity to enhance the overall impact by integrating some feedback we received in the last review. For instance, incorporating more user testimonials could strengthen our case study section.”
• “Your report is well-structured and informative. I would suggest revisiting the conclusions section to ensure that it aligns with the data presented earlier. Perhaps adding a summary of key findings before concluding would reinforce the report’s main takeaways.”
• “In reviewing your work, I’m impressed by your analytical skills. I believe using ‘I’ statements could make your argument even stronger, as it would provide a personal perspective that could resonate more with the audience. For example, saying ‘I observed a notable trend…’ instead of ‘There is a notable trend…’ can add a personal touch.”
• “Your project proposal is thought-provoking and innovative. To enhance it further, have you considered asking reflective questions at the end of each section? This could encourage the reader to engage more deeply with the material, fostering a more interactive and thought-provoking dialogue.”
• “I can see the potential in your approach to solving this issue, and I believe with a bit more refinement, it could be very effective. Maybe a bit more focus on the scalability of the solution could highlight its long-term viability, which would be impressive to stakeholders.”
• “I admire the dedication you’ve shown in tackling this challenging project. If you’re open to it, I would be happy to collaborate on some of the more complex aspects, especially the data analysis. Together, we might uncover some additional insights that could enhance our findings.”
• “Your timely submission of the project draft is commendable. To make your work even more impactful, I suggest incorporating recent feedback we received on related projects. This could provide a fresh perspective and potentially uncover aspects we might not have considered.”

Sample Peer Review Phrases: Positive Reinforcement

Offering positive feedback to peers as opposed to constructive criticism is on the easier side when it comes to the feedback spectrum.

There are still questions that linger however, such as: “ How to offer positive feedback professionally? “

To help answer that question and make your life easier when offering positive reinforcements to peers, here are 10 positive peer review examples! Feel free to take any of the peer feedback phrases below and use them in your workplace in the right context!

• “Your ability to distill complex information into easy-to-understand visuals is exceptional. It greatly enhances the clarity of our reports.”
• “Congratulations on surpassing this quarter’s sales targets. Your dedication and strategic approach are truly commendable.”
• “The innovative solution you proposed for our workflow issue was a game-changer. It’s impressive how you think outside the box.”
• “I really appreciate the effort and enthusiasm you bring to our team meetings. It sets a positive tone that encourages everyone.”
• “Your continuous improvement in client engagement has not gone unnoticed. Your approach to understanding and addressing their needs is exemplary.”
• “I’ve noticed significant growth in your project management skills over the past few months. Your ability to keep things on track and communicate effectively is making a big difference.”
• “Thank you for your proactive approach in the recent project. Your foresight in addressing potential issues was key to our success.”
• “Your positive attitude, even when faced with challenges, is inspiring. It helps the team maintain momentum and focus.”
• “Your detailed feedback in the peer review process was incredibly helpful. It’s clear you put a lot of thought into providing meaningful insights.”
• “The way you facilitated the last workshop was outstanding. Your ability to engage and inspire participants sparked some great ideas.”

Peer Review Examples: Feedback Phrases On Skill Development

Peer review examples on talent development are one of the most necessary forms of feedback in the workplace.

Feedback should always serve a purpose. Highlighting areas where a peer can improve their skills is a great use of peer review.

Peers have a unique perspective into each other’s daily life and aspirations and this can quite easily be used to guide each other to fresh avenues of skill development.

So here are 10 peer sample feedback phrases for peers about developing new skillsets at work:

• “Considering your interest in data analysis, I think you’d benefit greatly from the advanced Excel course we have access to. It could really enhance your data visualization skills.”
• “I’ve noticed your enthusiasm for graphic design. Setting a goal to master a new design tool each quarter could significantly expand your creative toolkit.”
• “Your potential in project management is evident. How about we pair you with a senior project manager for a mentorship? It could be a great way to refine your skills.”
• “I came across an online course on persuasive communication that seems like a perfect fit for you. It could really elevate your presentation skills.”
• “Your technical skills are a strong asset to the team. To take it to the next level, how about leading a workshop to share your knowledge? It could be a great way to develop your leadership skills.”
• “I think you have a knack for writing. Why not take on the challenge of contributing to our monthly newsletter? It would be a great way to hone your writing skills.”
• “Your progress in learning the new software has been impressive. Continuing to build on this momentum will make you a go-to expert in our team.”
• “Given your interest in market research, I’d recommend diving into analytics. Understanding data trends could provide valuable insights for our strategy discussions.”
• “You have a good eye for design. Participating in a collaborative project with our design team could offer a deeper understanding and hands-on experience.”
• “Your ability to resolve customer issues is commendable. Enhancing your conflict resolution skills could make you even more effective in these situations.”

Peer Review Phrase Examples: Goals And Achievements

Equally important as peer review and feedback is peer recognition . Being recognized and appreciated by one’s peers at work is one of the best sentiments someone can experience at work.

Peer feedback when it comes to one’s achievements often comes hand in hand with feedback about goals.

One of the best goal-setting techniques is to attach new goals to employee praise . That is why our next 10 peer review phrase examples are all about goals and achievements.

While these peer feedback examples may not directly align with your situation, customizing them according to context is simple enough!

• “Your goal to increase client engagement has been impactful. Reviewing and aligning these goals quarterly could further enhance our outreach efforts.”
• “Setting a goal to reduce project delivery times has been a great initiative. Breaking this down into smaller milestones could provide clearer pathways to success.”
• “Your aim to improve team collaboration is commendable. Identifying specific collaboration tools and practices could make this goal even more attainable.”
• “I’ve noticed your dedication to personal development. Establishing specific learning goals for each quarter could provide a structured path for your growth.”
• “Celebrating your achievement in enhancing our customer satisfaction ratings is important. Let’s set new targets to maintain this positive trajectory.”
• “Your goal to enhance our brand’s social media presence has yielded great results. Next, we could focus on increasing engagement rates to build deeper connections with our audience.”
• “While striving to increase sales is crucial, ensuring we have measurable and realistic targets will help maintain team morale and focus.”
• “Your efforts to improve internal communication are showing results. Setting specific objectives for team meetings and feedback sessions could further this progress.”
• “Achieving certification in your field was a significant milestone. Now, setting a goal to apply this new knowledge in our projects could maximize its impact.”
• “Your initiative to lead community engagement projects has been inspiring. Let’s set benchmarks to track the positive changes and plan our next steps in community involvement.”

Peer Evaluation Examples: Communication Skills

The last area of peer feedback we will be covering in this post today is peer review examples on communication skills.

Since the simple act of delivering peer review or peer feedback depends heavily on one’s communication skills, it goes without saying that this is a crucial area.

Below you will find 10 sample peer evaluation examples that you can apply to your workplace with ease.

Go over each peer review phrase and select the ones that best reflect the feedback you want to offer to your peers!

• “Your ability to articulate complex ideas in simple terms has been a great asset. Continuously refining this skill can enhance our team’s understanding and collaboration.”
• “The strategies you’ve implemented to improve team collaboration have been effective. Encouraging others to share their methods can foster a more collaborative environment.”
• “Navigating the recent conflict with diplomacy and tact was impressive. Your approach could serve as a model for effective conflict resolution within the team.”
• “Your active listening during meetings is commendable. It not only shows respect for colleagues but also ensures that all viewpoints are considered, enhancing our decision-making process.”
• “Your adaptability in adjusting communication styles to different team members is key to our project’s success. This skill is crucial for maintaining effective collaboration across diverse teams.”
• “The leadership you displayed in coordinating the team project was instrumental in its success. Your ability to align everyone’s efforts towards a common goal is a valuable skill.”
• “Your presentation skills have significantly improved, effectively engaging and informing the team. Continued focus on this area can make your communication even more impactful.”
• “Promoting inclusivity in your communication has positively influenced our team’s dynamics. This approach ensures that everyone feels valued and heard.”
• “Your negotiation skills during the last project were key to reaching a consensus. Developing these skills further can enhance your effectiveness in future discussions.”
• “The feedback culture you’re fostering is creating a more dynamic and responsive team environment. Encouraging continuous feedback can lead to ongoing improvements and innovation.”

Best Way To Offer Peer Feedback: Using Feedback Software!

If you are offering feedback to peers or conducting peer review, you need a performance management tool that lets you digitize, streamline, and structure those processes effectively.

To help you do just that let us show you just how you can use the best performance management software for Microsoft Teams , Teamflect, to deliver feedback to peers!

While this particular example approaches peer review in the form of direct feedback, Teamflect can also help implement peer reviews inside performance appraisals for a complete peer evaluation.

Step 1: Head over to Teamflect’s Feedback Module

While Teamflect users can exchange feedback without leaving Microsoft Teams chat with the help of customizable feedback templates, the feedback module itself serves as a hub for all the feedback given and received.

Once inside the feedback module, all you have to do is click the “New Feedback” button to start giving structured and effective feedback to your peers!

Step 2: Select a feedback template

Teamflect has an extensive library of customizable feedback templates. You can either directly pick a template that best fits the topic on which you would like to deliver feedback to your peer or create a custom feedback template specifically for peer evaluations.

Once you’ve chosen your template, you can start giving feedback right then and there!

Optional: 360-Degree Feedback

Why stop with peer review? Include all stakeholders around the performance cycle into the feedback process with one of the most intuitive 360-degree feedback systems out there.

Request feedback about yourself or about someone else from everyone involved in their performance, including managers, direct reports, peers, and external parties.

Optional: Summarize feedback with AI

If you have more feedback on your hands then you can go through, summarize that feedback with the help of Teamflect’s AI assistant!

What Are The Benefits of Implementing Peer Review Systems?

Peer reviews have plenty of benefits to the individuals delivering the peer review, the ones receiving the peer evaluation, as well as the organization itself. So here are the 5 benefits of implementing peer feedback programs organization-wide.

1. Enhanced Learning and Understanding

Peer feedback promotes a deeper engagement with the material or project at hand. When individuals know they will be receiving and providing feedback, they have a brand new incentive to engage more thoroughly with the content.

2. Cultivation of Open Communication and Continuous Improvement

Establishing a norm where feedback is regularly exchanged fosters an environment of open communication.

People become more accustomed to giving and receiving constructive criticism, reducing defensiveness, and fostering a culture where continuous improvement is the norm.

3. Multiple Perspectives Enhance Quality

Peer feedback introduces multiple viewpoints, which can significantly enhance the quality of work. Different perspectives can uncover blind spots, introduce new ideas, and challenge existing ones, leading to more refined and well-rounded outcomes.

4. Encouragement of Personal and Professional Development

Feedback from peers can play a crucial role in personal and professional growth. It can highlight areas of strength and identify opportunities for development, guiding individuals toward their full potential.

Related Posts:

Written by Emre Ok

Emre is a content writer at Teamflect who aims to share fun and unique insight into the world of performance management.

15 Performance Review Competencies to Track in 2024

10 Best Employee Promotion Interview Questions & Answers!

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Abdelghani Maddi

May 16th, 2024, the best peer review reports are at least 947 words.

0 comments | 6 shares

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

Based on an analysis of the relationship between peer review reports and subsequent citations, Abdelghani Maddi argues that longer and hence more constructive and engaged peer review reports are closely associated with papers that are more cited.

Peer review continues to be the focus of considerable debate across academic fields as diverse as the sociology of science, economics and biology. This focus reflects a divide within the scientific community regarding its efficacy and role in identifying errors, and instances of scientific misconduct. In recent years it has been fueled by a proliferation of notable cases of errors and misconduct detected in articles published in prestigious international journals, including those published by Elsevier and Springer Nature. The rise of generative AI has again only heightened concerns due to its overt and covert use in peer review .

Nonetheless, there exists a consensus within the scientific community regarding the pivotal role of peer review in knowledge generation and dissemination. Despite uncertainties surrounding its ability to detect fraud and questionable practices, reviewers’ comments typically aim to provide constructive feedback aimed at enhancing the quality of papers, encompassing both structural and substantive aspects, including methodological validation and alignment to recognised publication standards.

However, as we found in a recent paper , quantifying the added value and tangible impact conferred by peer review on scientific publications remains challenging. The approach we opted for was to focus on the length of peer review reports. Our theory being that there is a direct correlation between the length of reports and the extent of revisions and modifications requested from authors. Hence, longer reports are, generally, associated with a higher likelihood of authors making revisions and enhancements to their papers, thereby bolstering their quality, visibility, and citation metrics.

We used data from Publons to extract information regarding the length of reviewers’ reports for a corpus of 57,482 publications. To ensure generalisability, the structure of the Publons database was adjusted with that of the Web of Science database using the Raking Ratio method, employing a control group comprising 12.3 million articles. Consequently, the weighted sample faithfully mirrors the overall database structure across disciplinary distribution, collaborative patterns, open access practices, among other variables.

papers garnering the highest citation counts tended to be associated with longer reviewer reports, exceeding the average length.

Our analyses revealed a statistically significant impact of reviewers’ report length on citations received, with reports surpassing approximately one and a half pages (947 words) marking a critical threshold. Notably, papers garnering the highest citation counts tended to be associated with longer reviewer reports, exceeding the average length. Beyond this threshold, citation counts exhibited an increasing trend with longer report lengths, corroborating the initial hypothesis positing the synonymous relationship between the length of referees’ reports and the extent of revisions solicited, thereby enhancing manuscript “quality”.

This finding highlights the role of reviewers in enhancing the quality of scientific publications. Their contribution extends far beyond mere minor revisions including spelling or grammatical corrections. Reviewers, who can be aptly termed the “unsung heroes” of scientific research, significantly contribute to improving publication quality by providing detailed and constructive reports, even within shrinking deadlines. Yet, their contribution remains largely unrecognised and underestimated.

Another salient aspect raised by the study is the importance of time for conducting thorough peer review. Journal editors need to acknowledge that furnishing useful, comprehensive reports entails a considerable investment of time and effort from reviewers. Soliciting evaluations within extremely short time frames, such as a week for reading the publication and drafting the report, as practiced by certain “gray” publishers, can compromise the quality of assessments and consequently diminish the value added by peer review to manuscripts. This points to the need to reconsider the emphasis on speed in response times for peer review.

Journal editors need to acknowledge that furnishing useful, comprehensive reports entails a considerable investment of time and effort from reviewers.

A third implication is related to the current saturation of the scientific publishing system , where the increasing number of submitted articles strains journals, reviewers, and the scientific community as a whole. This workload overload risks compromising the focus of reviewers, who must assess a large number of articles within short deadlines. This could lead to a risk of disseminating “bad science” if certain important aspects of an articles are not properly evaluated due to time constraints. Especially so in a context where the speed of peer review has become a sort of “advertising” argument wielded by some publishers to attract authors. Even though post-publication peer review allows for partial “correction” of errors and questionable practices, the volume of annual publications far exceeds the capacities of the active community to scrutinise all publications. The scientific community requires a pre-publication evaluation system that functions properly.

Finally, open peer review offers promising prospects for enhancing transparency and vigilance. According to one recent study the peer review model adopted by a journal has a direct influence on the behaviour of both researchers and reviewers. The study highlights that journals implementing open peer review protocols incentivise heightened engagement from researchers and reviewers, as their actions directly impact their reputations. In addition, by allowing access to reviewer reports and promoting the reuse of evaluation data, this approach could facilitate deeper and more quantitative analyses of the impact of peer review on the quality of scientific publications and the advancement of science in general. Thus, open peer review represents an opportunity to rethink and improve peer review practices in a context where the increasing quantity of publications necessitates a more efficient and transparent approach.

This post draws on the authors article, On the peer review reports: does size matter? , published in Scientometrics.

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit:  nampix  on Shutterstock . 

About the author

Abdelghani Maddi is a research engineer at GEMASS (CNRS/Sorbonne University). Economist by training specializing in Scientometrics. He is passionate about understanding scientific knowledge production, promoting open science, and improving research evaluation.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

Can generative AI add anything to academic peer review?

September 26th, 2023.

Double-anonymous review is an effective way of combating status bias in scholarly publishing 

September 28th, 2023.

For Epistemic Respect – Against Reviewer 2

January 26th, 2023.

Reading Peer Review – What a dataset of peer review reports can teach us about changing research culture

March 31st, 2021.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

• Global Elections
• About Speakers Bureau Careers

Researchers warned against using AI to peer review academic papers

Sign up for Semafor Technology: What’s next in the new era of tech. Read it now .

In this article:

Katyanna’s view

Room for Disagreement

Researchers should not be using tools like ChatGPT to automatically peer review papers, warned organizers of top AI conferences and academic publishers worried about maintaining intellectual integrity.

With recent advances in large language models, researchers have been increasingly using them to write peer reviews — a time-honored academic tradition that examines new research and assesses its merits, showing a person’s work has been vetted by other experts in the field.

That’s why asking ChatGPT to analyze manuscripts and critique the research, without having read the papers, would undermine the peer review process. To tackle the problem, AI and machine learning conferences are now thinking about updating their policies, as some guidelines don’t explicitly ban the use of AI to process manuscripts, and the language can be fuzzy.

The Conference and Workshop on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) is considering setting up a committee to determine whether it should update its policies around using LLMs for peer review, a spokesperson told Semafor.

At NeurIPS, researchers should not “share submissions with anyone without prior approval” for example, while the ethics code at the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), whose annual confab kicked off Tuesday, states that “LLMs are not eligible for authorship.” Representatives from NeurIPS and ICLR said “anyone” includes AI, and that authorship covers both papers and peer review comments.

A spokesperson for Springer Nature, an academic publishing company best known for its top research journal Nature, said that experts are required to evaluate research and leaving it to AI is risky. “Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports and their expert evaluations help ensure the integrity, reproducibility and quality of the scientific record,” they said. “Their in-depth knowledge and expertise is irreplaceable and despite rapid progress, generative AI tools can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information.”

Other major scientific publishing companies such as Taylor & Francis and Sage told Semafor they prohibit reviewers from using AI, citing concerns like transparency and confidentiality.

Researchers, however, are increasingly turning to AI to review papers. A study led by Stanford University found that text that appears to have been “substantially modified or produced by a LLM” in the peer review process at NeurIPS, ICLR, and other popular machine learning conferences has risen.

“I think some people are complaining about this, and we have heard many anecdotes about people that think they’ve gotten reviews from ChatGPT,” Weixin Liang, a PhD student studying computer science at Stanford University, told Semafor.

One researcher, who posted a snippet of a comment in response to a paper he submitted to the ICLR, on X, was suspicious that it had been written by a LLM. Judging by the words in the text, he may be right. The Stanford study found that words such as “commendable”, “meticulous”, “lucidly” suddenly increased in peer reviews recently and are indicative of having been generated by ChatGPT.

“One thing that we found is that when it’s close to the deadline to submit the review, the probability of people using AI seems to increase a lot. So, probably, one of the underlying causes is the fast-paced nature of research and people feeling under pressure,” Liang said. Academics are expected to publish new research and often teach, too. Peer review is yet another job, and one they don’t typically get paid for.

It’s not surprising that more researchers are turning to AI in a rush to meet deadlines on top of their already demanding workloads. It’s more acceptable to use it to improve writing and thinking, but less so when it’s being used to replace having to do any real work. I’d be annoyed if I spent time and effort working on a research paper only to be rejected by a machine and have no one read it.

Been Kim, the general chair for this year’s ICLR conference and a research scientist at Google DeepMind, told me that no formal complaints have been filed by researchers annoyed about LLMs reviewing their work. But conferences should be vigilant and more explicit in their policies around using AI for academic writing. It’s difficult to crack down on inappropriate usage of LLMs since it’s tricky to determine whether something is AI or human-written. But if the technology continues to degrade the research process, public trust in academia will weaken, too.

Some researchers, however, might argue that AI should automate peer reviews since it performs quite well and can make academics more productive. Liang said that some comments generated by ChatGPT are not too dissimilar from experts, and can raise some of the same issues in research that human reviewers would have flagged, too. In fact, he told Semafor that he asked the chatbot to critique his team’s paper and found that it highlighted some of the same points that human reviewers did.

• AI peer review could exacerbate plagiarism if tools like ChatGPT generate similar critiques to papers, researchers believe .

Daniel Lemire's blog

Daniel Lemire is a computer science professor at the Data Science Laboratory of the Université du Québec (TÉLUQ) in Montreal. His research is focused on software performance.

Peer review is not the gold standard in science

Peer review as we know it today was introduced very late, over a century after the scientific revolution. It happened after Einstein’s time… arguably the most productive era in science. Current scientists often equate a success with the publication in a selective peer-reviewed venue. But that was never the scientific paradigm. In fact, it is pre-scientific thinking. Back in Einstein’s time, many scientists believed in the ether. It would have been difficult to dismiss the ether as a concept. The prudent approach would have been to pay lip service to the ether. Similarly, most scientists believed in eugenics. They believed in forced sterilization for the greater good. Many of the racist laws in the US followed straight from progressive science. Opposing eugenics would have been difficult in the context of peer review. It would have been difficult to challenge eugenics openly as a scientists.

Siler et al. (2014) looked at published manuscripts that were initially rejected. They find:

Of the 808 eventually published articles in our dataset, our three focal journals rejected many highly cited manuscripts, including the 14 most popular; roughly the top 2 percent. Of those 14 articles, 12 were desk-rejected. This finding raises concerns regarding whether peer review is ill-suited to recognize and gestate the most impactful ideas and research.

Recently, people like Matt Ridley challenged the idea that the SARS-Cov2 virus originated from nature. Back when he published his book on the topic , it would have been difficult to pass peer review.

You may not remember, but early on, it would widely accepted that the lab origin of SARS-Cov2 was only for far-right conspiracy theorists. The Canadian State broadcaster (CBC) told us , in its ‘science’ section:

One of the most persistent and widespread pieces of disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the conspiracy theory that the novel coronavirus that causes the disease was created in a lab — and was let loose either by accident or on purpose by some nefarious actor.

In the US Senator Cotton suggested that thespread of a coronavirus is connected to research at the Wuhan institute of virology. In response, the Washington Post wrote :

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked . (…) In response to Cotton’s remarks, as well as in previous interviews with The Washington Post, numerous experts dismissed the possibility the coronavirus may be man-made.

Here is what one of the most reputed medical journal (The Lancet) published :

We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.

The article omits the fact that the authors have glaring conflicts of interest (undisclosed).

Thacker describes some of the event in a piece for BMJ :

But the effort to brand serious consideration of a lab leak a “conspiracy theory” only ramped up. Filippa Lentzos, codirector of the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College, London, told the Wall Street Journal , “Some of the scientists in this area very quickly closed ranks.” She added, “ There were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared for their grants. ” Daszak had support. After he wrote an essay for the Guardian in June 2020 attacking the former head of MI6 for saying that the pandemic could have “started as an accident,” Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust [a major funder] and co-signer of the Lancet letter, promoted Daszak’s essay on Twitter, saying that Daszak was “always worth reading.” Daszak’s behind-the-scenes role in orchestrating the statement in the Lancet came to light in November 2020 in emails obtained through freedom of information requests by the watchdog group US Right To Know. “Please note that this statement will not have EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person,” wrote Daszak in a February email, while sending around a draft of the statement for signatories. In another email, Daszak considered removing his name from the statement “so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way.” Several of the 27 scientists who signed the letter Daszak circulated did so using other professional affiliations and omitted reporting their ties to EcoHealth Alliance. For Richard Ebright, professor of molecular biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey and a biosafety expert, scientific journals were complicit in helping to shout down any mention of a lab leak . “That means Nature , Science , and the Lancet ,” he says. In recent months he and dozens of academics have signed several open letters rejecting conspiracy theory accusations and calling for an open investigation of the pandemic’s origins. Efforts to characterise the lab leak scenario as unworthy of serious consideration were far reaching, sometimes affecting reporting that had first appeared well before the covid-19 pandemic . For example, in March 2020 Nature Medicine added an editor’s note (“Scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus”) to a 2015 paper on the creation of a hybrid version of a SARS virus, co-written by Shi.

Here are the facts as we knew them back then… as anyone could know…

• There was an outbreak caused by a bat sarbecovirus, in the one city in the world that had been collecting hundreds of bat sarbecoviruses and experimenting on them.
• It happened one year after that lab proposed inserting the one feature that distinguishes SARS‑CoV‑2 from all other viruses.
• The lab in question refuses to this day to release the database of the viruses it had been working on.
• Virus leaks have been common.

It was always sensible to ask whether SARS-CoV-2 came from the Wuhan lab. Yet this was openly censored. As is often the case, instead of reflecting on this failure, many people rewrite history. “We never denied it could have come from a lab”, they say. “We never denied that it could have been human-made,” they say. But they very explicitly and strongly did so. They specifically and repeatedly said that this virus could not have been made in a laboratory:  yet a funding application to do exactly that, a few years before, had been submitted to the US government by Daszak, the very man who insisted that the lab origin was a conspiracy theory.

Of course, knowledgeable scientists knew that the lab origin was a possibility. They did not dare to speak up. Would you speak up when it could mean the end of your career?

This was not at all an isolated incident. Dr. Scott Atlas was censored by Stanford for questioning the covid dogma. The Stanford Review writes :

This censure, now a black mark on the University, was unquestionably motivated by political animosity. Atlas, a health policy expert who worked as a professor at Stanford Medical School for fourteen years, chose to serve his country by taking an advisory role in the Trump Administration’s White House Coronavirus Task Force. As an advisor, Atlas suggested reopening schools and businesses and pushed back against draconian lockdown policies.

You might answer… « Attacking people for getting closer to the truth isn’t new » But science seeks to address this very point. In fact, it is the very essence of the epistemology of science: the recognition that truth is not arrived by social consensus or by following the powerful. There are many ways to describe science, but to a first approximation…  Science is the process whereas anyone can post ideas and results for others to replicate, and everyone get to fail in public, and, hopefully correct themselves. Science the opposite of a gatekeeping process, it is, by its very nature, a progressive and open process.

It does not mean you should not use peer review publication. But you need to recognize that it is not the reference in science. Evidence is evidence. Consensus is not evidence.

Remember: ‘The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’

Daniel Lemire, "Peer review is not the gold standard in science," in Daniel Lemire's blog , May 11, 2024.

Published by

Daniel Lemire

A computer science professor at the University of Quebec (TELUQ). View all posts by Daniel Lemire

3 thoughts on “Peer review is not the gold standard in science”

What do you think of open/blind peer review? From my point of view, it’s a shame sometimes even useful feedback comes so late in the process with little chance to improve. Of course you’ll be in a better position the next time you submit somewhere in case your topic still has relevance and you didn’t miss your slot to publish something novel.

I oppose double blind peer review, see https://lemire.me/blog/2020/11/19/double-blind-peer-review-is-a-bad-idea/

‘The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’

Well I would say replace “the world” with “human society,” and the quote becomes true. But as written, I would rather say very, very few are reasonable, and it is on them that progress depends.

Or at least I guess we should distinguish scientific progress form engineering progress. 😂

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may subscribe to this blog by email.

Impact of the use of cannabis as a medicine in pregnancy, on the unborn child: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• Info/History
• Preview PDF

Introduction: The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes is on the rise. As more people place their trust in the safety of prescribed alternative plant-based medicine and find it easily accessible, there is a growing concern that pregnant women may be increasingly using cannabis for medicinal purposes to manage their pregnancy symptoms and other health conditions. The aim of this review is to investigate the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes during pregnancy, describe the characteristics of the demographic population, and to measure the impact on the unborn child and up to twelve months postpartum. Methods and analyses: Research on pregnant women who use cannabis for medicinal purposes only and infants up to one year after birth who experienced in utero exposure to cannabis for medicinal purposes will be included in this review. Reviews, randomised controlled trials, case control, cross-sectional and cohort studies, that have been peer reviewed and published between 1996 and April 2024 as a primary research paper that investigates prenatal use of cannabis for medicinal purposes on foetal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes, will be selected for review. Excluding cover editorials, letters, commentaries, protocols, conference papers and book chapters. Effects of illicit drugs use, alcohol misuse and nicotine exposure on neonate outcome will be controlled by excluding studies reporting on the concomitant use of such substances with cannabis for medicinal purposes during pregnancy. All titles and abstracts will be reviewed independently and in duplicate by at least two researchers. Records will be excluded based on title and abstract screening as well as publication type. Where initial disagreement exists between reviewers regarding the inclusion of a study, team members will review disputed articles status until consensus is gained. Selected studies will then be assessed by at least two independent researchers for risk bias assessment using validated tools. Data will be extracted and analysed following a systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. The statistical analysis will combine three or more outcomes that are reported in a consistent manner. The systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the PRISMA guidelines to facilitate transparent reporting [1].

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study will use ONLY openly available human data from studies published in biomedical and scientific journals.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

View the discussion thread.

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One
• Addiction Medicine (323)
• Allergy and Immunology (627)
• Anesthesia (163)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2367)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (288)
• Dermatology (206)
• Emergency Medicine (379)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (835)
• Epidemiology (11765)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (702)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3732)
• Geriatric Medicine (348)
• Health Economics (633)
• Health Informatics (2393)
• Health Policy (930)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (896)
• Hematology (340)
• HIV/AIDS (781)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13303)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (767)
• Medical Education (365)
• Medical Ethics (104)
• Nephrology (398)
• Neurology (3493)
• Nursing (198)
• Nutrition (523)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (673)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (662)
• Oncology (1820)
• Ophthalmology (535)
• Orthopedics (218)
• Otolaryngology (287)
• Pain Medicine (232)
• Palliative Medicine (66)
• Pathology (446)
• Pediatrics (1032)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (426)
• Primary Care Research (420)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3172)
• Public and Global Health (6137)
• Radiology and Imaging (1280)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (746)
• Respiratory Medicine (825)
• Rheumatology (379)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (372)
• Sports Medicine (322)
• Surgery (401)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (172)
• Urology (145)

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

How I learned to stop worrying and love fake meat

Let’s stop inventing reasons to reject cultured meat and other protein alternatives that could dramatically cut climate emissions.

• James Temple archive page

Fixing our collective meat problem is one of the trickiest challenges in addressing climate change—and for some baffling reason, the world seems intent on making the task even harder.

The latest example occurred last week, when Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a law banning the production, sale, and transportation of cultured meat across the Sunshine State. 

“Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals,” DeSantis seethed in a statement.

Alternative meat and animal products—be they lab-grown or plant-based—offer a far more sustainable path to mass-producing protein than raising animals for milk or slaughter. Yet again and again, politicians, dietitians, and even the press continue to devise ways to portray these products as controversial, suspect, or substandard. No matter how good they taste or how much they might reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, there’s always some new obstacle standing in the way—in this case, Governor DeSantis, wearing a not-at-all-uncomfortable smile.  

The new law clearly has nothing to do with the creeping threat of authoritarianism (though for more on that, do check out his administration’s crusade to ban books about gay penguins). First and foremost it is an act of political pandering, a way to coddle Florida’s sizable cattle industry, which he goes on to mention in the statement.

Cultured meat is seen as a threat to the livestock industry because animals are only minimally involved in its production. Companies grow cells originally extracted from animals in a nutrient broth and then form them into nuggets, patties or fillets. The US Department of Agriculture has already given its blessing to two companies , Upside Foods and Good Meat, to begin selling cultured chicken products to consumers. Israel recently became the first nation to sign off on a beef version.

It’s still hard to say if cultured meat will get good enough and cheap enough anytime soon to meaningfully reduce our dependence on cattle, chicken, pigs, sheep, goats, and other animals for our protein and our dining pleasure. And it’s sure to take years before we can produce it in ways that generate significantly lower emissions than standard livestock practices today.

But there are high hopes it could become a cleaner and less cruel way of producing meat, since it wouldn’t require all the land, food, and energy needed to raise, feed, slaughter, and process animals today. One study found that cultured meat could reduce emissions per kilogram of meat 92% by 2030, even if cattle farming also achieves substantial improvements.

Those sorts of gains are essential if we hope to ease the rising dangers of climate change, because meat, dairy, and cheese production are huge contributors to greenhouse-gas emissions.

DeSantis and politicians in other states that may follow suit, including Alabama and Tennessee, are raising the specter of mandated bug-eating and global-elite string-pulling to turn cultured meat into a cultural issue, and kill the industry in its infancy. 

But, again, it’s always something. I’ve heard a host of other arguments across the political spectrum directed against various alternative protein products, which also include plant-based burgers, cheeses, and milks, or even cricket-derived powders and meal bars . Apparently these meat and dairy alternatives shouldn’t be highly processed, mass-produced, or genetically engineered, nor should they ever be as unhealthy as their animal-based counterparts. 

In effect, we are setting up tests that almost no products can pass, when really all we should ask of alternative proteins is that they be safe, taste good, and cut climate pollution.

The meat of the matter

Here’s the problem. 

Livestock production generates more than 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, making up 14.5% of the world’s overall climate emissions, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Beef, milk, and cheese production are, by far, the biggest problems, representing some 65% of the sector’s emissions. We burn down carbon-dense forests to provide cows with lots of grazing land; then they return the favor by burping up staggering amounts of methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. Florida’s cattle population alone, for example, could generate about 180 million pounds of methane every year, as calculated from standard per-animal emissions . 

In an earlier paper , the World Resources Institute noted that in the average US diet, beef contributed 3% of the calories but almost half the climate pollution from food production. (If you want to take a single action that could meaningfully ease your climate footprint, read that sentence again.)

The added challenge is that the world’s population is both growing and becoming richer, which means more people can afford more meat. 

There are ways to address some of the emissions from livestock production without cultured meat or plant-based burgers, including developing supplements that reduce methane burps and encouraging consumers to simply reduce meat consumption. Even just switching from beef to chicken can make a huge difference .

Let’s clear up one matter, though. I can’t imagine a politician in my lifetime, in the US or most of the world, proposing a ban on meat and expecting to survive the next election. So no, dear reader. No one’s coming for your rib eye. If there’s any attack on personal freedoms and economic liberty here, DeSantis is the one waging it by not allowing Floridians to choose for themselves what they want to eat.

But there is a real problem in need of solving. And the grand hope of companies like Beyond Meat, Upside Foods, Miyoko’s Creamery, and dozens of others is that we can develop meat, milk, and cheese alternatives that are akin to EVs: that is to say, products that are good enough to solve the problem without demanding any sacrifice from consumers or requiring government mandates. (Though subsidies always help.)

The good news is the world is making some real progress in developing substitutes that increasingly taste like, look like, and have (with apologies for the snooty term) the “mouthfeel” of the traditional versions, whether they’ve been developed from animal cells or plants. If they catch on and scale up, it could make a real dent in emissions—with the bonus of reducing animal suffering, environmental damage, and the spillover of animal disease into the human population.

The bad news is we can’t seem to take the wins when we get them. 

The blue cheese blues

For lunch last Friday, I swung by the Butcher’s Son Vegan Delicatessen & Bakery in Berkeley, California, and ordered a vegan Buffalo chicken sandwich with a blue cheese on the side that was developed by Climax Foods , also based in Berkeley.

Late last month, it emerged that the product had, improbably, clinched the cheese category in the blind taste tests of the prestigious Good Food awards, as the Washington Post revealed .

Let’s pause here to note that this is a stunning victory for vegan cheeses, a clear sign that we can use plants to produce top-notch artisanal products, indistinguishable even to the refined palates of expert gourmands. If a product is every bit as tasty and satisfying as the original but can be produced without milking methane-burping animals, that’s a big climate win.

But sadly, that’s not where the story ended.

After word leaked out that the blue cheese was a finalist, if not the winner, the Good Food Foundation seems to have added a rule that didn’t exist when the competition began but which disqualified Climax Blue , the Post reported.

I have no special insights into what unfolded behind the scenes. But it reads at least a little as if the competition concocted an excuse to dethrone a vegan cheese that had bested its animal counterparts and left traditionalists aghast. 

That victory might have done wonders to help promote acceptance of the Climax product, if not the wider category. But now the story is the controversy. And that’s a shame. Because the cheese is actually pretty good. 

I’m no professional foodie, but I do have a lifetime of expertise born of stubbornly refusing to eat any salad dressing other than blue cheese. In my own taste test, I can report it looked and tasted like mild blue cheese, which is all it needs to do.

A beef about burgers

Banning a product or changing a cheese contest’s rules after determining the winner are both bad enough. But the reaction to alternative proteins that has left me most befuddled is the media narrative that formed around the latest generation of plant-based burgers soon after they started getting popular a few years ago. Story after story would note, in the tone of a bold truth-teller revealing something new each time: Did you know these newfangled plant-based burgers aren’t actually all that much healthier than the meat variety? 

To which I would scream at my monitor: THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT!

The world has long been perfectly capable of producing plant-based burgers that are better for you, but the problem is that they tend to taste like plants. The actual innovation with the more recent options like Beyond Burger or Impossible Burger is that they look and taste like the real thing but can be produced with a dramatically smaller climate footprint .

That’s a big enough win in itself. 

If I were a health reporter, maybe I’d focus on these issues too. And if health is your personal priority, you should shop for a different plant-based patty (or I might recommend a nice salad, preferably with blue cheese dressing).

But speaking as a climate reporter, expecting a product to ease global warming, taste like a juicy burger, and also be low in salt, fat, and calories is absurd. You may as well ask a startup to conduct sorcery.

More important, making a plant-based burger healthier for us may also come at the cost of having it taste like a burger. Which would make it that much harder to win over consumers beyond the niche of vegetarians and thus have any meaningful impact on emissions. WHICH IS THE POINT!

It’s incredibly difficult to convince consumers to switch brands and change behaviors, even for a product as basic as toothpaste or toilet paper. Food is trickier still, because it’s deeply entwined with local culture, family traditions, festivals and celebrations. Whether we find a novel food product to be yummy or yucky is subjective and highly subject to suggestion. 

And so I’m ending with a plea. Let’s grant ourselves the best shot possible at solving one of the hardest, most urgent problems before us. Treat bans and political posturing with the ridicule they deserve. Reject the argument that any single product must, or can, solve all the problems related to food, health, and the environment.

Climate change and energy

The problem with plug-in hybrids their drivers..

Plug-in hybrids are often sold as a transition to EVs, but new data from Europe shows we’re still underestimating the emissions they produce.

• Casey Crownhart archive page

Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment

The decision follows years of controversy and the departure of one of the program’s key researchers.

How thermal batteries are heating up energy storage

The systems, which can store clean energy as heat, were chosen by readers as the 11th Breakthrough Technology of 2024.

These artificial snowdrifts protect seal pups from climate change

The human-built habitats shield the pups from predators and the freezing cold, but they’re threatened by global temperature rise.

• Matthew Ponsford archive page

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.