An inside perspective on what makes a review useful — and what happens when editors receive one that isn’t.
An inside perspective on what makes a review useful — and what happens when editors receive one that isn’t.
For many researchers, the peer review process is something of a black box. You submit your report and hope it was helpful, but you rarely learn how the editor used it, what the other reviewers said, or how your assessment influenced the final decision. This opacity can make it difficult to calibrate your approach.
This article aims to bridge that gap. Based on editorial practices at Research and Science Today and guidance published by leading international journals, we outline what editors look for in a review report — and what they can do without.
The Editor’s Perspective
An editor handling a submitted manuscript must answer a sequence of questions: Does this work fall within the journal’s scope? Is it methodologically sound? Does it make a meaningful contribution to the field? Is it presented clearly enough for the journal’s readership? Editors are often specialists in a broad area but not in the specific subfield of every manuscript they handle. They depend on reviewers to provide the subject-matter expertise needed to answer these questions with confidence.
This means that the most valuable thing a reviewer can do is provide a clear, specific, evidence-based assessment of the manuscript’s scientific quality. Editors can handle formatting issues, language concerns, and administrative matters. What they cannot do — and what they rely on you for — is evaluate whether the research itself is sound.
What a Useful Review Contains
A brief, accurate summary
Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript’s main claims, written in your own words. This is more important than many reviewers realize. It shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript, and it reveals any fundamental misunderstandings — on the part of the reviewer or the authors — that could affect the evaluation. In a multidisciplinary journal, where the handling editor may not be a deep specialist in the manuscript’s topic, this summary is indispensable.
A clear overall assessment
State plainly whether you think the work represents a meaningful contribution to the field. Editors need to know the significance of the work, not just whether it is technically correct. A manuscript can be methodologically flawless but incremental beyond the point of interest, or it can be rough around the edges but present findings of genuine importance. Help the editor understand where the manuscript falls on this spectrum.
Specific, located concerns
Every major concern should reference a specific section, figure, table, or page number. Comments like “the statistical analysis is questionable” are far less useful than “the authors report a p-value of 0.04 in Table 3, but given the multiple comparisons performed, this result may not survive correction for multiple testing.” Specificity allows the authors to respond directly and allows the editor to evaluate the severity of the issue.
Separation of major and minor issues
Editors use the distinction between major and minor concerns to calibrate their decision. Major issues are those that affect the validity or interpretation of the results. Minor issues are those that improve the manuscript but do not change its fundamental conclusions. If everything is listed as a major concern, the editor cannot distinguish between genuinely critical problems and suggestions for improvement.
A recommendation consistent with the report
Editors frequently encounter a disconnect between the content of a review and the recommendation. A report that raises no serious concerns but recommends major revision, or one that identifies fundamental flaws but recommends acceptance, creates an editorial dilemma. Match your recommendation to your assessment. If you are genuinely uncertain, say so — that is itself a useful signal.
What Editors Can Do Without
Line-by-line copyediting
While grammatical errors and unclear prose are worth noting in general terms, detailed language corrections are not the primary purpose of peer review. Editors have access to copyediting resources and can advise authors to seek professional language editing. Your time is better spent evaluating the science.
Demands for additional experiments beyond the scope
Reviewers sometimes request additional studies that would essentially constitute a new project. While it is appropriate to note that a particular control is missing or that an additional analysis would strengthen a specific claim, requests that would fundamentally change the scope or extend the timeline by months are generally unhelpful. Focus on what is needed to validate the current findings — not what would be interesting as a follow-up.
Vague praise or criticism
Comments like “interesting work” or “the methodology is weak” without elaboration give the editor nothing to work with. If the work is interesting, explain what makes it so. If the methodology is weak, identify the specific weakness and explain why it matters for the conclusions.
Personal or ad hominem remarks
This should go without saying, but editors still encounter reviews that question the authors’ competence, make assumptions about their motivations, or adopt a condescending tone. Such comments are unprofessional, they are never included in decision letters, and they reflect poorly on the reviewer. Focus on the work, not the people behind it.
The Multidisciplinary Dimension
At Research and Science Today, manuscripts span a wide range of disciplines — from the natural and medical sciences to engineering, social sciences, humanities, and emerging fields such as data science and artificial intelligence. This breadth means that reviewers will sometimes encounter methodological approaches, citation conventions, or rhetorical styles that differ from their own disciplinary norms.
We ask reviewers to approach such manuscripts with intellectual openness. A qualitative study in sociology should not be judged by the standards of a randomized controlled trial, just as a computational study should not be expected to include fieldwork. Evaluate the manuscript against the standards of the discipline in which it is situated, and flag for the editor any aspects that fall outside your expertise.
How Your Review Shapes the Decision
Editors at this journal typically seek assessments from two or more independent reviewers. The final decision is made by the editor, who weighs the reviewer reports alongside their own reading of the manuscript, the journal’s scope, and available space. Reviewers advise; editors decide.
This distinction is important. You should not feel that the outcome of the manuscript rests entirely on your shoulders. Your role is to provide the most honest, thorough, and constructive assessment you can. The editor bears the ultimate responsibility for the decision and will consider all available evidence — including, in some cases, additional expert opinions if the initial reviews are divided.
A Final Note: The Review as a Scholarly Contribution
A well-written peer review is itself a form of scholarly work. It requires deep engagement with another researcher’s ideas, critical thinking about methodology and evidence, and the ability to communicate complex assessments clearly. At Research and Science Today, we recognize this contribution and are committed to supporting our reviewers with clear guidelines, reasonable timelines, and transparent editorial processes.
We encourage all current and prospective reviewers to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and to approach each invitation as an opportunity — not only to strengthen a colleague’s work, but to contribute to the integrity of the scholarly record itself.
— — —
This article is informed by editorial guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Research and Science Today operates in full compliance with COPE principles.