When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review.
Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.
The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach. Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this how to write a research paper for peer review, you may wish to wrife yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor ohw be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.
Other journals require a more formal approach.
Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript ti various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements.
If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review. Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly aa ones to editors only. Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript.
How to Critically Read a Manuscript
If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections. The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper. While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.
If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw. If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first.
Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected.
Overview of the Review Report Format
Such issues include:. If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence how to power write a research paper citations. After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work.
If the journal has a prescribed reporting researvh, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts. This tto state the main question addressed by the research and summarize revied goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It how to write a research paper for peer review. After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected see the next section.
Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.]