Reply from Linda Miller

Linda Miller — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:00:21 -0000

For the most part, peer reviewers jump right in. Training for those doing their first review is likely to be in the form of a collaborative review written by a student or post-doc in conjunction with the P.I. (let the editor know, though, if a colleague helps with a review). Helping out on reviews also allows one to learn the art of maintaining a professional tone throughout the review. Informal training like this isn’t the ideal, as it takes a great deal of patience and skill to convey how to write a review that is fair, helpful to the editor, and of use to the author. If graduate schools required this type of critique as a regular part of some ‘recent literature’ courses, the quality of reviewing would only be increased.

Some of the best training a young scientist can get is to present papers at journal clubs. Going through the data and approaches, critiquing them, and rendering an opinion as to the appropriateness of its publication are some of the main skills that are valued in peer reviewers.

Editors also visit institutes and give seminars on what to think about when submitting or reviewing for Nature journals. We also have some guidelines for referees on our Authors & Referees website, which include advice on writing the review and the questions to consider when doing so.

A Nature journal reviewer’s primary job is to help the editor come to a decision. If the paper is within the remit of the journal and the work is approaching the standards of the journal, the editors also rely on the referees to suggest what improvements the paper needs to push it over the threshold. Authors also greatly appreciate these helpful suggestions.

Nature journals always contact potential referees ahead of time. If a referee agrees to review, only to find out that the paper is far from their comfort zone, they should get in touch with the editor immediately. Occasionally an error may have been made, but often the editor was looking for some help with a particular aspect of the manuscript, and really didn’t expect you to comment on the rest. A quick e-mail exchange with the editor can clear things up.

Nature journal referees particularly like seeing the other referee comments. Besides their intrinsically voyeuristic nature, we have been told that seeing other comments is an educational and helps them to write more helpful critiques in the future.

We are open to suggestions about how to help increase the pool of qualified, fair, and useful referees. Let us know if you have any more ideas.

Recent replies to "Peer reviewers"

Reply from Linda Miller