A how-to for peer review
Craft a constructive, professional review with these pointers from journal-editing
insiders.
When it comes to reviewing
manuscripts for publication, who are the toughest reviewers? Most journal editors will tell you
it’s students and early-career psychologists. New to the process, they tend to spend more
time than seasoned scientists poring over the articles and revising their feedback, they say.
“If anything, student reviewers tend to have higher standards than
their mentors,” says William Davidson, PhD, editor of the American Journal of Community
Psychology (AJCP), which has been training students how to conduct peer reviews since the 1970s. “Everyone knows that the new PhD is the hardest professor on campus.” And
while rigorous reading is always a good thing, students—like any reviewers—can fall
into editing traps. Some focus on grammar mistakes that should be left to the main editor, rather
than on big-picture feedback. Others come down too hard to show off their smarts, editors say.
To maximize your reviewing opportunities, here’s some wise advice
from experienced reviewers and editors:
 Come prepared. Editors usually offer student reviewers papers
in their areas of expertise, but if you land a paper that’s in unfamiliar territory, review
the relevant psychology literature before your first read-through, editors say. “You’re
not evaluating the study in isolation, but in the context of its literature,” says Yale University’s
Alan E. Kazdin, PhD, APA’s president.
Cover the bases. A good review should detail a paper’s strengths and weaknesses
and answer such broad questions as: What contribution will this paper make to the field? Is the methodology
sound? Can the readers clearly draw conclusions based on the analysis? Is the writing clear? Is
it well-organized? Study the journal’s reviewer guidelines, too, which may list more questions
to tackle, such as whether the paper addresses diversity issues, editors say.
Avoid copy editing. A reviewer’s job is to focus on substantive feedback; the journal’s
editor and copy editors mark the punctuation errors and style points. Point out egregious errors,
says Kazdin, but note them as minor points near the end of your review, rather than lead with a run-down
of grammatical blunders.
Have confidence. While some new reviewers overcriticize, others don’t
have faith in their own opinions, says Mary Beth Kenkel, PhD, who worked with student reviewers
when she edited Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (PPRP). She advises students
to avoid being too nice. “Wishy-washy comments aren’t that helpful to authors,”
she says. “The author has to then try to figure out what they really mean. Be direct.”
Fix what can be fixed. Good reviews focus on the necessary repairs, not the elements
that can’t be altered, such as the study sample. “Authors can’t fix what their
sample should have been,” says Davidson. Point out realistic revisions given the original
research, he says. If you feel the work is unpublishable due to serious errors in the science, say
so and advise rejection.
Take small bites. Michigan State University graduate student Megan Greeson
takes several passes at the articles she reviews for journals such as the American Journal of Evaluation
and AJCP. She devotes one read to methodology and another for critiquing the writing and organization.
She also teases the sections apart, checking that the discussion follows the results and so forth.
“I like to make sure everything matches and that it’s one coherent paper,” says
Greeson.
Watch your language. Let a finished review sit for a day before re-reading it to
critique your tone, which should be professional, polite and constructive rather than hostile
or patronizing, says Kazdin. “Some people are naturally Mother Teresa-like, and other people
are more Reviewer the Ripper,” he says. “Reviewing is like a martial art. Even though
you are capable of doing harm, that’s not the purpose here.” From an editor’s perspective,
a negative tone reflects badly on the reviewer, not the author, he adds.
Compare and learn. Most editors send reviewers the final revision cover letter
that he or she returned to the author, says Kenkel, who advises students to compare their reviews
with others’ to see what they may have missed. Students should also note whether their feedback
made it into the editor’s main suggestions for revision, she says.
Once they reach this point, many students say journal editing isn’t as daunting as they
once thought.
“Before I reviewed, I had always seen the finished product,” says former APAGS Chair
Kristi Sands Van Sickle, PsyD, who worked with Kenkel on reviews for PPRP as a graduate student.
“When I started reading raw projects I thought, ‘I can do this!’ It gave me more
confidence to publish and submit in the future.”
By JAMIE CHAMBERLIN
gradPSYCH Staff
Would you like to get your feet wet with peer reviewing? Visit http://gradpsych.apags.org/nov05/cover-primer.html
for tips on finding reviewing opportunities.
Also in CAREER center …
 Student-to-student mentoring
Big-picture psychologists
Getting a move on
|
