Summer 2015: ROSS
Research Paper Peer Review
Guidelines
Ideally, this peer review would be done anonymously. For practical purposes you will know
which group with which you are swapping. Your task is to help the author to write a better, more
readable, paper. You don't need to be a great scientific writer yourself to do this. You just need to
be a good, attentive, reader. Your "reader's ear" will help you more than any knowledge of
scientific writing rules, and in fact we'll provide you with specific questions below when we want
you to give the author feedback concerning particular rules and conventions of scientific writing.
As you read, you will find yourself responding at three levels: at the global level you are
evaluating the big picture (main idea, overall structure, validity of argument.) At the paragraph
level, you respond to the ways the author moves you through the argument (transitions between
paragraphs and sections, cohesiveness of paragraphs, variety of sentence structure within
paragraphs, etc.) Finally, at the sentence level (line editing), you respond to issues of word choice,
sentence structure, grammar and spelling.
Clearly the global level issues are most important: an incorrect interpretation of the whole
experiment or an illogical organization will sink the paper no matter how much effort is put into
sentence structure. One of your jobs as reviewer is to identify the level (global, paragraph, or
sentence) at which the author needs to concentrate their revision work. Fine-tuning of sentences
should take place only after any major structural changes have been made.
Instructions
Although global issues should be the author's first priority, we know that sentence-level problems
can distract you, the reviewer, from your focus on the ideas being discussed. Read the paper
through once, making notes to yourself and the author as you work through any difficult
sentences, grammatical errors, or structural problems (incomplete or wordy sentences, imprecise
language, misspellings, use of jargon, etc.) You do NOT need to line-edit the whole paper - pick a
few paragraphs to mark extensively, and after that, just make any marks you need to help you on
your second reading.
The second time you read the paper, ignore any sentence-level issues and pay close attention to
what the author is trying to say. We encourage you to write on the paper and note any questions
you may have along the way. Remember, your responses AS A READER are what we're after
here -- if on both reads you had to flip back to page 2 after reading the second paragraph on page
3, there is definitely a problem there. You may not know exactly what the problem is yet, but you
need to make a note of it, continue mulling it over, and tell the author about it. After this second
reading, begin working through the review form, re-reading sections as needed to help you
answer the questions.
Page 1 of 6
I. Introduction: The Introduction should summarize our current understanding of the
problem (before the study reported here), and clearly indicate the purpose of the study.
A. At the end of the Introduction, leading into the Materials and Methods section, the
author should 1) clearly state the purpose or goal of the study, and 2) briefly indicate the
study's approach and how it addresses the questions or hypotheses posed. Indicate where
the author does this, and whether it is done effectively.
B. What is the larger context the author has chosen for considering their specific question
or problem? Does this context make sense? Is the big picture (context) linked explicitly
and logically to the small picture (particular experiment being done here)?
C. What sort of related previous research is mentioned? If you feel unclear about the
relevance of the research cited to the context the author has chosen, what other sorts of
references would provide a better background for the study? Is there additional
background information that should be provided here?
D. Consider the audience. Is the level of background information appropriate for this
audience? Does it assume we know more than we do? Does it explain more than it needs
to? Does the level of the Introduction correspond to the title?
Page 2 of 6
II. Materials and Methods: The Materials and Methods section should succinctly
explain what was done, giving only information necessary to repeat the experiment.
A. This section must describe experimental subjects or data sources, and study site for
field studies, the experimental/sampling design (include numbers and grouping of
subjects, treatments, controls, etc.), the experimental/sampling procedures (what was
done to each subject or how each item was prepared or collected), and the methods of
analysis. Mark on the draft where each of these pieces appears. Is the organization logical
and helpful to the reader? Is the information complete? Is all the necessary quantitative
information provided (e.g. concentrations, how long, how many, etc.)? Is there any
information that belongs in another section? Are subheadings present if needed?
B. How does it read? Point out single-action sentences, excessive detail, or repetitive
sentences or paragraphs that could be combined. Does the author strike an appropriate
balance between use of "I/we" and excessive passive voice?
III. Results: This section reports the data/results using a combination of text, figures, and
tables, without imposing any interpretation at this stage.
A. For each key result, has the author drawn attention in the text to the trends or
comparisons most pertinent to answering the question posed in the Introduction? Does
the author "set you up" well to move on to the interpretations given in the Discussion,
without straying into interpretation here? Are results presented in a sequence that helps
the reader to understand them, and does the structure of this section relate logically to that
of the Methods section?
B. Data summary and statistics: Has the author chosen the best way to summarize the
numerical results (means + error term, proportions, percent, ratios, etc.?) If statistical
Page 3 of 6
tests were employed, are they summarized appropriately in the figures/tables, or
parenthetically in the text?
C. Figures/Tables: Has the author chosen the best format (table, figure, or numbers in
text) for presenting each set of results? Are the types of figures chosen appropriate, and
are there places where multiple or compound figures should be substituted for single,
complex ones? Check figure legends, table captions, axis or column labeling, and all
other aspects of the figures/tables for consistency with ALL the instructions there. Note
problems on the draft. Has the author clearly told you what data are plotted or tabulated?
Could another scientist familiar with the study topic understand each figure or table
without referring to the text?
IV. Discussion: The Discussion interprets the Results, relating them to the hypothesis
and to the existing larger body of information about the topic. It answers the question
"what do we know now about this problem that we didn't know before we did our study,
and how have our explanations of these phenomena changed (or been affirmed) by this
work?"
A. If the author restates results, indicate this and pose questions that would refocus them
on interpretation. Indicate any information that belongs in a different section.
Page 4 of 6
B. What are the author's conclusions and do they follow clearly from the study's results?
Are there data that don't support the conclusions? Are there other possible interpretations
of the data, and have the authors considered them in the text? Does the author's language
clearly differentiate between conclusions, interpretations, and speculations? Does the
author speculate too much or too broadly?
C. Are there sufficient references to relevant information from the primary literature? Do
the authors use the literature to help justify their interpretation of the results? Could they
make better use of their references? If you know of other papers the authors should look
at, suggest them.
D. Does the Discussion answer the question posed in the Introduction, and does it use the
context of background information and literature established there? Or do the authors
need to update their Introduction, now that the results are in? Considering audience again,
is the discussion written at an appropriate level that matches that of the Introduction?
V. Title: Having read the entire paper, check that the Title describes the study and its
major finding. Suggest any necessary changes to the information content of the title here,
as well as on the draft.
Page 5 of 6
VI. Final Analysis
A. Consider the major issues you've identified in the paper. At which level should the
author focus their revision effort? Check one, or number in sequence of importance.
Global__________ Paragraph____________ Line-editing___________
B. List the three most important improvements that the Author needs to make. Make sure
that you have suggested constructive solutions to these problems.
1.
2.
3.
C. List the three most important strengths of this paper that the Author should not lose in
the process of revision.
1.
2.
3.
D. WRITING STYLE: Describe the writing style of the paper (stuffy, casual,
professional, 'folksy', wordy, etc.) and suggest stylistic changes.
E. LINE-EDITING: Look back over the marks you made on your first read-through,
making sure that you have indicated in at least a several-paragraph section all examples
of wordy, colloquial, repetitive, or confusing sentence structure, and examples of
imprecise language, grammar and spelling errors, misuse of terminology and excessive
jargon. As you go through this section again, suggest alternative wordings or structures.
Describe below which section you have chosen for this detailed line editing (e.g. "all of
page 3", "first 3 paragraphs of Introduction", "first paragraph of each main section", etc.).
Page 6 of 6