Print This PostI recently carried out my first peer review of a research article. Throughout my PhD, I had the typical invites to peer review from predatory research journals, but this was the first proper invite as a postdoc, where I felt like I had the appropriate expertise to actually review the article. Despite my knowledge in the area, it was initially an intimidating experience, and I want to use this blog to reflect on the process and how I approached it.
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific research. As scientists we hear that a lot. But when are you ready to start peer reviewing and how do you know what to do when the time comes? I don’t currently have many published first author articles, and so my name is not yet established in my field as a Bonafide expert. But I was invited to peer review from a guest editor who knows more of my research through conference presentations and collaboration – this is how the article found its way to me.
The first decision was whether to accept to do the review. It arrived in my inbox just before Christmas, when I was in a big rush to finish lots of other things. But I knew I would be travelling to get home and that I could use this time to read the article. The second part of this decision came down to my confidence in my ability to do the review. Although it would have been easy to back away and lean into my imposter syndrome, I was engaged by the challenge and felt like that early into my first postdoc, I needed to get this scientific rite of passage done.
Although I accepted, I wanted to make sure I was able to review this paper to the best of my ability before I got started. I asked some colleagues for tips but found it hard to pin down some exact guidelines. I read the requirements on the journals website but felt like I needed a bit more of a thorough description before diving in. I therefore turned to a more formal resource, Nature masterclass’s free course on the topic of peer review. I had never used any of these courses before, but I found it useful. I didn’t click through every module and read it word for word but could select various topics where I felt most uncertain. The course had video interviews with different researchers who each gave substantial advice on how they approach peer review.
From listening to this advice, my approach was to read the entire article from start to finish in one sitting, making some basic notes where I needed. I then mulled over the paper for a few days, mostly in the back of my mind while busy with other tasks. I then came back to the paper and read it again, this time writing detailed points to go in my reviewer’s report.
My friends and I often have lunchtime conversations about how to fix the broken academic system. Although these discussions usually just end up going round in frustrated circles, I remember someone commenting on how one real way that we can make some semblance of change in our day-to-day job, was to be kind and considerate peer reviewers. Not to ask for tonnes of extra work “just because”, and to acknowledge good work when we see it. This conversation was in the forefront of my mind as I wrote my report, and I made a concerted effort to mention what I thought the article did very well and clearly acknowledge when suggested additions were outside the scope of the current manuscript.
The journal I was reviewing for had a blank box for the reviewers’ comments, so I broke my list up into major and minor comments, with major focusing on broader scientific questions, and minor covering missing citations, requested rephrasing and highlighting findings in large figures. On top of the comments, as is standard practice, I started my report with a summary of the work presented in the manuscript and a comment of the novelty of the study. Alongside the report, I was asked by the journal to comment on the quality of the manuscript (what percentile of all manuscripts I’ve ever read it fell into), and whether I would recommend it be published (and if so with what level of correction). Finally happy with my review, I submitted the report just before Christmas. Overall, I spent at least a full workday on this review – a time which I hope to bring down in future with more experience.
About a month later, I was requested to re-review the paper with the comments from myself and the other reviewer implemented. This time was easier and faster, with each reviewer’s point listed with the authors describing how they addressed it. I was satisfied with how the authors had addressed my comments, and I was happy to see that the other reviewer and I had both brought up some similar points – this certainly put me at ease, and I felt more like I had done a good job. The second round of review took only about an hour to complete, and I was able to recommend to the journal that the article be published.
Overall, I am glad that I have officially peer reviewed a manuscript and feel a bit more like a “real scientist” for doing so. I learnt about the process and got to have the first look at some new and exciting science. For any early career researchers eager to get the experience of peer review, make sure to let supervisors know this, as they can recommend you, or get you to help them peer review too!
Clíona Farrell
Author
Dr Clíona Farrell is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the UK Dementia Research Institute at University College London. Her work focuses on understanding neuroinflammation in Down syndrome, both prior to, and in response to, Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Originally from Dublin, Ireland, Clíona completed her undergraduate degree in Neuroscience in Trinity College, and then worked as a research assistant in the Royal College of Surgeons studying ALS and Parkinson’s disease. She also knows the secret behind scopping the perfect 99 ice-cream cone.
Dementia Researcher
