Navigation

1. Introduction

Peer review is a process for assessing the quality, validity, and originality of scientific research papers before publication. Typically, it consists of anonymous reviewers who judge the research quality of a manuscript based on criteria such as importance, originality, rigor, and relevance before recommending it for publication. Peer review strives to be an impartial review process to maintain the high quality of research and the integrity of the scientific method. In practice, the process has flaws: it is slow, comes with subjective biases, and can be inconsistent. Nonetheless, as researchers, we can all do our part in making peer review an equitable and effective process. To that end, this Commkit provides best practices for communication during peer review, both for conducting a peer review and for responding to reviewer comments.


2. Criteria for Success

After reading this CommKit, you will be able to:

  • Understand the importance of clear communication during peer review
  • Formulate constructive reviewer comments for a candidate publication
  • Respond to reviewer comments to maximize the chance of acceptance

3. Purpose

The purpose of this CommKit is to describe best practices for communication during peer review, both while conducting a review and while responding to reviewer comments. The goal is that these practices can help create an impartial, constructive, and equitable peer review process.

4. Analyze Your Audience and Context

Peer review is highly dependent on the field and where the manuscript is submitted. On one hand, platforms like Arxiv have no peer review and allow pre-prints to be posted online with minor moderation. In contrast, platforms like eLife have an extensive peer review process and publish the peer review assessments along with the manuscript. Recently, journals such as Nature have also started to publish the reviewer reports and author comments along with the manuscript to create a more transparent process.

Aerospace journals (e.g., AIAA journals, Acta Astronautica) typically fall somewhere in between. After a manuscript is submitted, the journal editor assigns two to three anonymous reviewers to give feedback on the manuscript based on specific criteria and recommend it for publication. These comments are reviewed by the editor and sent back to the authors with one of four decisions:

  • Accept with no revisions
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject

Based on the decision, the authors may complete revisions to address the reviewer comments and send the manuscript back to the editor for additional review. The process repeats until the editor deems the manuscript ready for publication. 

Given the various people involved in peer review, it is important to consider the goals of the stakeholders in the process:

  1. Journal editor: The main goal of the editor is to judge whether the manuscript is a good fit for the journal and whether it is worthy of publication. A secondary goal is to facilitate clear communication between the reviewers and the authors while maintaining anonymity.
  2. Authors: The main goal of the authors is to publish the manuscript while respecting the feedback and comments of the reviewers and editor.
  3. Reviewers: The main goals of the reviewers are to judge the research quality of the manuscript based on the journal criteria, suggest a decision to the editor, and provide constructive feedback to the authors.

Given the different goals between the stakeholders, clear communication is critical when both conducting a peer review and responding to reviewer comments.

5. Best Practices as a Reviewer

5.1. Understand the judging criteria

To provide an objective assessment of a manuscript, it is critical to understand the judging criteria. Typical criteria for publication in aerospace journals include the following (1):

  • Importance to engineering research. Is this a topic that is important to aerospace engineering research? Will aerospace engineers and researchers care that this paper was written? Is this a useful and pertinent engineering problem?
  • Originality of work. How novel is the work? Are the methods and techniques novel?
  • Rigor of work. Are the methods scientifically sound and described in sufficient detail? Do the analysis and test results support the conclusions? How well does the paper show its work?
  • Relevance to a specific journal. Is this paper relevant to the technical area of the journal? Does it align with the aims and scope of the journal?

Reviewers should keep these criteria in mind while reading the manuscript. As the criteria are broad and not focused on specific details of the research, the goal of the reviewer should be to get the gist of the paper. At the same time, the goal of the authors should be to ensure that the importance, originality, rigor, and relevance of the work are clear to the reviewers.

Reading efficiently as a reviewer takes practice, but one approach for a first read-through is to read the abstract and introduction, understand the figures, and read the conclusion. Subsequent read-throughs can be used to understand the methods and discussion, and digest the key points made in the abstract, figures, and conclusion. During each read-through, strive to stay objective. Refer back to the judging criteria and note down any questions, comments, and feedback along the way.

5.2. Offer revisions that are in scope and constructive

Suggested revisions to the manuscript are most helpful when they are in scope and constructive. When providing comments as a reviewer, think about how long the suggested revisions would take. For instance, suggesting additional discussion and references in the introduction is valid, but suggesting additional experiments that could take years to complete is likely out of scope. Further, if the journal has page limits, acknowledge them when making suggestions. For instance, do not ask the authors to add multiple figures if the manuscript is already at the page limit. Instead, focus on revisions that would make the research stronger, e.g., by clarifying assumptions, improving the analysis, and strengthening the key takeaways.

In a similar vein, it does not help to only point out flaws in the manuscript. Highlighting grammatical and technical errors is acceptable, but strive to focus on the bigger picture, i.e., what is missing and how it can be improved. Additionally, when suggesting revisions, try to back up your claims/requests with references to aid the authors (but don’t make obvious plugs to your own work). Your goal as a reviewer should be to provide constructive criticism that improves the overall story and magnifies its potential impact after publication.

5.3. Be aware of biases

All biases cannot be removed, but it is important to be aware of your biases as a reviewer and to minimize their effect on the review. For instance, avoid conflicts of interest: If you know the author(s) personally, ask the editor to replace you as a reviewer. Further, you may have different stylistic preferences from the authors. While you may want to suggest figure edits to match your preferences, avoid overly stylistic edits. Offer suggestions that would make the figures more clear and accessible, e.g., with high-contrast colors, and focus on how to improve the overall presentation of the research.

6. Best Practices as an Author

6.1. Be concise and thorough

Serving as a peer reviewer is voluntary, and reviewers are often overloaded with requests. Hence, as an author, it is crucial to respond with clarity and efficiency. Aim to understand what each comment or suggestion is getting at, and ask for clarification if needed. Then address each comment concisely with sufficient analysis, discussion, or experiments as required. At the same time, be thorough: cite relevant sources, make both minor and major revisions, and ensure that no comments are overlooked, as reviewers and editors do notice.

6.2. Be strategic

When responding to reviewer comments, aim to do the minimum amount of work to satisfy the reviewers. Begin by addressing major revisions that affect the validity, clarity, or impact of the work, then move on to minor stylistic or editorial suggestions. Sometimes you may disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, and reviewers may also have conflicting opinions. In these cases, decide which changes to include and provide a reasoned explanation that acknowledges the reviewers’ perspectives. A well-thought-out response shows reviewers that you respect their input while also exercising sound judgment as the author.

6.3. Be professional

Treat the review process as a collaborative dialogue. Submit your response on time, and structure your reply in a clear, organized way using numbered responses or bullet points. An organizational template is useful to structure the responses, e.g., an Excel sheet with the first column for reviewer comments, the second for your responses, and a third noting where changes have been made in the manuscript. Clearly marking revisions in red also allows reviewers and editors to follow updates to the manuscript.

In your overall response, always maintain a respectful and constructive tone towards the reviewers and editors, even if you disagree with their comments. It is good etiquette to thank the reviewers for their time and to acknowledge that their feedback has helped strengthen the manuscript. If disagreements do arise, focus on providing clear, evidence-based reasoning rather than dismissing the comments. Professional, collaborative communication will only strengthen your case for publication.

7. Annotated Examples     

8. Additional Resources and Citations

  1.  Adapted from judging criteria for AIAA Student Paper Competitions

      Other MIT departmental-specific CommKits on peer review:

9. Acknowledgments

      Thanks to Evan Kramer for the comments and edits.