Advanced peer review issues

Reviewing a revised manuscript

A second round review is a different task from the first. Rather than reassessing everything from scratch, focus on whether the author has genuinely addressed each point raised in the first round, rather than simply asserting that they have. Compare the author’s response letter against the actual changes in the manuscript, and flag any point that was acknowledged in the letter but not visibly acted on in the text.

Handling disagreement between reviewers

You will not know the identity or the recommendation of the other assigned reviewer, and this is by design. If the editor comes back to you noting that your recommendation differs sharply from the other reviewer’s, respond to the substance of the question honestly, explain the reasoning behind your original assessment, and remain open to revising your view if the editor shares a specific point you had not considered. Do not soften a genuine concern simply because another reviewer saw the manuscript differently, and equally, do not treat disagreement as a contest to win.

Critical reviews and controversial topics

A critical review is one that reaches a negative or heavily qualified recommendation. This is a legitimate and sometimes necessary outcome, not a failure of the review process. Where a manuscript addresses a controversial or contested topic, apply the same review questions and the same standard of evidence as any other manuscript, and be explicit in your comments about which of your concerns are about the quality of the argument or evidence, and which, if any, are about the topic itself. Keep these separate, since a controversial topic argued well should not be marked down for being controversial.

Rebuttals

An author may formally rebut a reviewer’s comment, arguing that a criticism is mistaken or a suggested change is not appropriate. Read a rebuttal with the same openness you would want from an author reading your review. Where the rebuttal makes a sound case, it is appropriate to concede the point. Where it does not, restate your concern clearly rather than dropping it simply because it was contested.

Reviewer recognition and progression

Reviewing consistently and well builds a track record, and it is worth keeping your own record of the reviews you complete, since editors and institutions do not always track this for you. This record is useful evidence toward academic promotion, editorial board invitations, and the editorial career path set out in Lesson 3. Ask the editor for a letter or record of your review contributions where this would support your own professional development, this is a reasonable request, not an imposition.