Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews

Peer review has been the cornerstone of scientific inquiry for centuries and is considered the backbone of scientific quality and rigour (Spier, 2002). Despite its importance to the scientific process, peer review suffers from a variety of issues that undermine objectivity and impartiality, and act as a disservice to both science as an institution and the scientists that engage in it (Smith, 2006; Proctor et al., 2023; Candal-Pedreira et al., 2024). Furthermore, issues with peer review can drive public mistrust of science (Cooke et al., 2024). One issue that has received much attention in contemporary discussions on peer review is poor reviewer etiquette. By default, peer review is an interpersonal enterprise and relies on written communication between authors and reviewers, with reviewers providing critical appraisal of research conducted by the authors. Unfortunately, the nature of this relationship provides for an environment where written evaluations of scientific works can present as unconstructive, harsh or downright mean. Indeed, some peer reviewers feel that harshness is justified to prevent the publication of poor-quality science (Gerwing et al., 2021). Although communication between authors and reviewers is mediated by journal editors, unprofessional peer reviews (i.e. unconstructive or unethical reviews) often make their way to authors. For example, a survey of >1100 practicing scientists revealed that approximately 60% had received unprofessional reviews during their career (Silbiger and Stubler, 2019). Another study reported that 10–35% of peer reviews in the field of ecology and evolution, and >40% in the field of behavioural medicine, contained unconstructive and often demeaning comments (Gerwing et al., 2020). These types of reviews can result in delayed publication times, unaddressed reviewer comments, increased author–reviewer conflicts, and negative effects on the productivity, self-confidence and mental health of authors (Clements, 2020a, 2020b; Feinmann, 2024); such negative effects are reported to disproportionately affect underrepresented groups, including women (Silbiger and Stubler, 2019) and early career researchers (ECRs) (Derrick et al., 2023). Most published discussions of reviewer conduct underscore a need for formal training (Clements, 2020b; Gerwing et al., 2021; Feinmann, 2024); however, such training remains rare (An et al., 2023; Buser et al., 2023; Willis et al., 2023; Stupacher, 2025). Consequently, many reviewers may not have the skills to provide a collegial and constructive peer review. To help fill this gap, Conservation Physiology recently introduced guidelines for reviewers (https://academic.oup.com/conphys/pages/guidelines-for-reviewers). This editorial aims to support those guidelines by providing peer reviewers with directed guidance for generating constructive peer reviews (Fig. 1). The goal here is to help promote a collaborative and collegial peer review process and minimize conflicts between reviewers and authors. To help achieve that goal, we provide direction on how (and how not) to make reviewer comments constructive and useful for authors. We then highlight additional, overarching facets of peer reviews that can increase constructiveness and utility. The perspectives shared here are based on our experiences as authors, peer reviewers and editors working with a variety of different journals. As such, the contents of this editorial are broadly applicable across scientific journals and disciplines. Attributes of a constructive peer reviews. In this section, we provide five tips with directed advice for writing constructive peer reviews based on five common attributes of unconstructive reviews. We use the following reviewer comment to highlight problematic phrasing and indicate how the comment can be altered in an iterative fashion to be more constructive: ‘I was disappointed that the authors completely failed to connect physiology and conservation in the Discussion’. It is important to note here that the attributes of unconstructive reviews are not mutually exclusive and are often present in unison in a single comment, which will be demonstrated throughout this section. A summary is provided in Table 1. As a peer reviewer, it is important to remember that your task is to evaluate the written work at hand and not the authors themselves. All too often, reviewer comments contain ad hominem commentary directed at the authors rather than the work. Such commentary should be avoided. For instance, in our example reviewer comment, the inclusion of the phrase 'the authors completely failed to’ directs the criticism away from the written text and places it on the authors. As such, the comment comes across as an attack on the authors’ competencies rather than a critique of the Discussion. For collegial, constructive comments, always avoid directing your comments at the authors and instead keep them directed on the manuscript. Let us revise the comment above: Original comment: ‘I was disappointed that the authors completely failed to connect physiology and conservation in the Discussion’. Suggested revision: ‘I was disappointed that the Discussion failed to connect physiology and conservation’. Perhaps one of the biggest discouragements for authors when they receive reviewer comments is a review with an emotively negative or sarcastic tone (Baglini and Parsons, 2020; Clements, 2020b). Reviewer comments are sometimes written in an expressive manner that communicates the reviewer’s emotional state to the authors. While this tone can sometimes be positive, the role of the reviewer to be critical of the work can often generate a negative tone. Let us consider the tone of the revised reviewer comment from Tip 1. The goal of the comment is to highlight an omission in the Discussion and direct the authors to revise the text to address the omission; however, the inclusion of a reviewer-oriented adverb (‘I was disappointed’) directly relays the reviewer’s emotional state while reading the manuscript. Such emotive text can negatively impact authors and compound feelings of imposter syndrome, particularly for student authors and ECRs. Comments should be written without emotive underpinnings: Previous version: ‘I was disappointed that the Discussion failed to connect physiology and conservation’. Suggested revision: ‘The Discussion failed to connect physiology and conservation’ Care should also be taken to avoid other negative language. For example, while the revised comment does not convey emotional state, particular expressive verbs relay negativity. In the example, the verb ‘failed’ implies to authors that they failed to do something obvious when they simply may not have the same thought process as the reviewer. A more appropriate way of phrasing this comment would be to simply keep the language factual: Previous version: ‘The Discussion failed to connect physiology and conservation’. Suggested revision: ‘There was a lack of connection between physiology and conservation in the Discussion’. As detailed by Baglini and Parsons (2020), other examples of expressive language to avoid include: Subjective adjectives (‘terrible,’ ‘poorly,’ ‘disappointingly’) Depreciatory modifiers (‘barely,’ ‘hardly,’ ‘did not even’) Implicative verbs (‘didn’t manage to’, ‘didn’t bother to’, ‘didn’t take care to’) Narration (‘I didn’t bother reading’, ‘I was struck by the authors failure to’, ‘I had difficulty reading’) Rhetorical questioning (‘are the authors aware of’, ‘did the authors even’) Universalization (‘as is abundantly clear’, ‘as any good conservation physiologist knows’) Speculation (‘I bet the authors don’t’, ‘I would guess that the data are’) Overly expressive punctuation (‘This is wrong!’, ‘This reference doesn’t say that!’, ‘This sentence makes no sense…’). Scientists are human, no matter their expertise or the extent of their experience. Reviewer comments are based on these experiences and the reviewer’s subjective interpretation of written text. In our example comment, the reviewer subjectively felt that the Discussion lacked a connection between physiology and conservation; however, the authors may have thought that they did make that connection in a clear manner. As a reviewer, making your subjectivity clear to the authors can provide a constructive, non-authoritative buffer for them to realize that although they may have tried to connect physiology and conservation, this connection may not be clear to the reader from the text as written. Your perception can be conveyed by simply adding the phrase, ‘I felt that’ at the beginning of a comment. While this approach is not always necessary, it can provide a more collegial atmosphere between reviewers and authors. Going back to the last iteration of our revised comment from Tip 2: Previous version: ‘There was a lack of connection between physiology and conservation in the Discussion’. Suggested revision: ‘I felt that there was a lack of connection between physiology and conservation in the Discussion’. A constructive and useful reviewer comment not only highlights a potential issue, but provides some context for why the issue is an issue to begin with. For example, in the last iteration of our revised comment, there is no context or information to provide the authors with a reason why the reviewer felt the Discussion lacked a connection between physiology and conservation—it just broadly states that there is no connection. To this end, a constructive comment can provide some explanation for why an issue needs to be addressed and can help the authors understand how other readers may digest and interpret their written text. For example, we may add a sentence to our revised example comment to provide some context: Previous version: ‘I felt that there was a lack of connection between physiology and conservation in the Discussion’. Suggested revision: ‘I felt that there was a lack of connection between physiology and conservation in the Discussion. While the Discussion does a good job of highlighting physiology in the context of existing physiological literature, and conservation implications could be inferred, a more explicit linkage between species physiology and conservation would be beneficial for readers’. The last piece of a truly constructive reviewer comment directs the authors on how you think they can address your comment. As we mentioned above for our example comment, the authors may think that they already made appropriate connections between physiology and conservation, or may not know how to make those connections clearer. To make your comment useful for the authors, include an actionable statement that directs them on how to make that connection clearer. Further revising our example comment: Previous version: ‘I felt that there was a lack of connection between physiology and conservation in the Discussion. While the Discussion does a good job of highlighting physiology in the context of existing physiological literature, and conservation implications could be inferred, a more explicit linkage between species physiology and conservation would be beneficial for readers’. Suggested revision (final): ‘I felt that there was a lack of connection between physiology and conservation in the Discussion. While the Discussion does a good job of highlighting physiology in the context of existing physiological literature, and conservation implications could be inferred, a more explicit linkage between species physiology and conservation would be beneficial for readers. I suggest the addition of a paragraph in the Discussion that explicitly highlights how the physiological knowledge generated from this work will aid in the conservation of the species’. The authors may have another idea for addressing your comment that differs from the action you suggest; the appropriateness of their idea can be evaluated by reviewers in a second round of peer review, or by the editor if a second round of review is unnecessary. The important aspect is that some direction is provided to the authors so that they are not left guessing what the reviewer wants them to do. If you cannot think of an actionable suggestion for how the authors can address your comment, some consideration of whether the comment is appropriate and feasible may be required. If it is decided that the comment should remain, an open admission of not having ideas for addressing it can be included. If you feel that a suggestion would strengthen the manuscript but is not essential to carry out, it is useful to indicate that a revision is optional. In the above exercise, we demonstrated how to write a constructive reviewer comment and highlighted key linguistic attributes to avoid. However, linguistic phrasing is only one facet of a constructive peer review. In this section, we discuss additional attributes of constructive peer reviews that apply to the review, as a whole. Here, we focus on qualities of peer reviews that can help increase collegiality and constructiveness. While not all of the suggestions below are necessary for constructive reviews, considering and integrating them strategically can increase collegiality and make peer review more enjoyable for authors, reviewers and editors alike, regardless of the outcome of the process. Summary of the iterative process of revising an unconstructive reviewer comment to be more constructive. Potential revisions to incorporate each tip are highlighted in green font, deletions are struck-through, and additions are bolded. Summary of the iterative process of revising an unconstructive reviewer comment to be more constructive. Potential revisions to incorporate each tip are highlighted in green font, deletions are struck-through, and additions are bolded. Peer reviewers play a vital role in research publication and scientific progress, and act as gatekeepers who safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record. Given these responsibilities, reviewers should adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure the integrity of the review process. While the details of such guidelines are beyond the scope of this editorial, reviewers are encouraged to refer to the ‘Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers’ published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, 2017) and any reviewing-related communications or guidelines provided by the journal (e.g. Conservation Physiology’s Guidelines for Reviewers). Indeed, becoming familiar with the ethics of peer review should be treated as an essential component of peer reviewing rather than a ‘trick’ for being constructive. When engaging in a paper as a peer reviewer, it is easy to forget that your words will not only be read by the editorial team, but also by the authors. Research and scientific endeavours are inherently challenging—lack of funding, competition for jobs, pressure to work harder, poor work-life balance, and so on—such that negative peer reviews often lead researchers (especially ECRs) to question their being as scientists. This doubt contributes to phenomena such as imposter syndrome (Chrousos and Mentis, 2020) and ECRs voluntarily leaving a career in science (Kwiek and Szymula, 2025). Approaching peer review from the perspective that we are all part of a collegial and supportive community such that one brings some humanity to a review would serve all of us better. To be clear, that does not mean reducing standards or trading off academic rigour, but rather ensuring that the messaging is delivered in a thoughtful and constructive manner. If you have been asked to engage in the peer review process, you have almost certainly yourself been on the receiving end of peer reviews. Keep that in mind and ask yourself the question: Would the peer review I crafted help to further the development of the scientist and improve the paper, or would it simply crush their soul? Each and every person has biases, whether we like to admit it or not. While journal guidelines are a first line of defence against biases that could influence peer review (e.g. declaring conflicts of interest), other conscious and unconscious biases can make their way into the peer review process (IOP Publishing, 2020, 2024). It is important to explicitly recognize and consider those biases during and before submitting your peer review. For example, if you suggested the authors seek English language editing for a manuscript, provide some examples of improper English language from the manuscript and be sure that this suggestion is not rooted in a priori assumptions or stereotypes based on the authors’ nationality or native language (Politzer-Ahles et al., 2020). Similarly, check for potential biases related to author geography (Skopec et al., 2020; Dumlao and Teplitsky, 2025), gender (Kaatz et al., 2014; Bernstein, et al., institution 2025), career (IOP Publishing, 2020, or author (Clements, when a critique of a manuscript. and these biases is the first in peer reviews are with many comments and other or 2020). Although and punctuation are important in scientific reviews of a of can be for authors and are often as and 2020). If you while reviewing a manuscript, it is not necessary to each and every one to the authors. consider a single comment that you provide and the authors to attention to when revising their editors will help with should the manuscript be The focus of your review should be on more important such as scientific and peer reviews and are of issues are written with such that they of and (Gerwing et al., 2020). Such reviews are as and can drive a between authors and While and are not the end of the it is for peer reviewers to provide comments in a which and with sometimes peer reviews contain comments directing authors to in a way that the reviewer’s writing 2021). While such comments are appropriate when the as does not relay the authors’ reviewers should recognize that different authors have different writing and that just a sentence or manuscript is not written how you would write it does not inherently make it A constructive review will avoid the authors to their writing to with the and will instead focus on thoughtful suggestions to and care to your and reason for a scientific is et al., 2024). As such, it is to authors to all for a and there is a that the authors may not work you are aware it is In such reviewers may be to suggest to work they know but that the authors have and more to suggest that the authors the reviewer’s work on a et al., should be with particularly when to your work. reviews will always rather than and will keep these suggestions contained to that need or to text that the reviewer the authors to address a in the manuscript. For example, in the last sentence of our revised comment in the suggested could be provided at the end of the comment. should be that to their work a of that should be 2023). when be sure to provide details so that the authors can and whether to include or the suggested The nature of peer review as a of critique can often lead to a focus on of rather than on what those do of of can be for authors and provide to consider the reviewer’s comments and in a providing for a collegial peer review experience. Furthermore, that authors have can those in the scholarly and peer review Care should be however, to not too away from being emotive whether or can affect the way authors to criticism and influence an to or a manuscript in a way (Baglini and Parsons, 2020; Parsons and 2021). A constructive peer review will between critical and to provide a and of the work. One common issue for editors is reviewers who but do not their review on at and do not a need for to to a review is certainly fill and peer reviews often take a back to other If you know a priori (i.e. when you receive a reviewer that you are to the you can to the and ask for a you can the suggest some other reviewers for the editor to If you have a review and are to the simply the editorial that you Most academic journals in the reviewer to authors to reviewer without of author and In to of this some journals have an open peer review where reviewer are made to the authors and 2023). Indeed, some peer reviewers may feel making their to the authors, and may so in the of and et al., 2014; 2021). For journals with an review process, voluntarily peer reviews may provide an additional of to ensure a review remains collegial and constructive and 2021; et al., 2025). reviews also present an to be for your work as a peer reviewer 2023). beneficial be considered in the context of the of being a peer reviewer. For example, one be not to this to as a on they review. peer reviews can also with further and et al., 2025), including being at the of critical et al., to avoid negative by the authors and Such a is when ECRs or reviewers evaluate work from researchers (Clements, while voluntarily peer reviews can provide in some reviewers should only reviews if and ensuring that does not and In our experiences as editors for Conservation Physiology and other many reviewers do not comments to the editors, leaving the in the This field may be to convey information that should not be shared directly with the authors, such as research or publication poor language the manuscript, and conflicts of or by the authors. In although many including Conservation have where reviewers can related to the quality of the work and it is to the editor if you provide additional comments to support your particularly when you This also you to provide the for your you should provide additional information here when your is based on an aspect that is not appropriate to be mentioned directly to the authors, or not in your comments to the authors. it is important to keep in mind that all of constructive reviews mentioned above comments to the editor is not to in an unconstructive or unprofessional manner. In this editorial, we provide reviewers with suggestions for collegial and comments to authors, and highlight key attributes of constructive reviews. While these suggestions may obvious to the of peer reviews for Conservation Physiology are collegial and we that reviewers this guidance particularly the lack of formal training in peer The between constructive and unconstructive reviews is reviews increase a common goal (i.e. a in increase the of peer review and the quality and of published research et al., harsh and unconstructive reviews can have negative on the mental health of at career Clements, 2020a, 2020b). constructive reviews help to science while unconstructive, harsh reviews Conservation we for the of our peer reviewers, and we that this editorial provides guidance for the field of conservation and science in

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.