Biophysical Society Bulletin | December 2023

Career Development

How to Approach Your First Invitation to Peer Review a Manuscript

So you’ve received your first invitation to peer review a manuscript. You’re nervous and wondering if you should accept the assignment? How do you provide a useful and fair review? First, congrat

Distinct from scrutiny of scientific rigor and soundness, reviews that prove useful to editorial decisions offer a justified perspec tive of how important an advance the study makes to the field. This is not simply an opinion; it requires the reviewer first to place the study within a broader context. What is the current state of the field? What are the open questions? Which of these areas carry greatest potential? An experienced author skillfully can navigate readers through the manuscript’s Discussion, end ing at their conclusions. An effective reviewer can detect (and offer) alternative interpretations, justified by their command of the topic as well as knowledge within the current literature. This task understandably can be harder for a beginning investigator and likely involves additional literature mining. One might feel the need to consult a more experienced colleague, perhaps a scientific mentor. If you choose to consult, note it is always imperative to maintain confidentiality. As you read the manuscript, keep a running list of notes to your self. They need not be extensive, but ideally function as a series of prompts to help you compose your assessments. Draw on this material to organize your outline, which then serves as the framework for a more formal draft. Ideally, start with a section presenting a general summary of the topic and the question(s) addressed. Divide feedback into distinct sections to provide major and minor points of concern requiring the authors’ further consideration or clarification. With respect to the tenor of your review, use the following questions to guide you while composing. If this were your manuscript, what sort of feedback would you find most helpful? How would you like challenges to your own work delivered? In the review, you effectively establish a scientific dialog with the authors. Be constructive. If a point is unclear, ask. If it is incorrect, politely and justifiably correct it, and ask the authors to address this in their revision, if necessary. Treat this as an opportunity to establish a scientific rapport with individuals who likely will be reviewing your future manuscripts. Remember these take-home points: know when it is appropri ate to accept an invitation to review; your expert scientific input informs editorial decisions, so thoroughness is valued highly; and participating in peer review is a great opportunity not only to increase the depth of your knowledge and analytical skills, but also to refine your skills in collegial discourse. Reviewer feedback, offered constructively and in a collaborative spirit, has the potential to shape the literature and ultimately the direction of your discipline. By participating conscientiously, you make an important contribution. — Molly Cule

ulations on the invitation! Looks like your work has attracted attention and your expertise is now firmly established. This is an important milestone. Peer review experience is an essential and important credential expected in an academic setting. Review ing manuscripts is in itself a great opportunity to broaden your knowledge base and assessment skills. When performed well, it can elevate your professional reach over time, regardless of what career path you choose. Beware, however—you need to approach this important task systematically for maximum benefit to all. First things first: should you accept the assignment? Start by reading the abstract and asking yourself whether you have suf ficient interest and expertise to evaluate the study. Yes? Great! Next, consider whether you are able to review the manuscript without bias. As a rule, avoid accepting assignments to review manuscripts from direct competitors. Be aware that reviewing manuscripts from groups with whom you have a close associa tion can present bias as well. Next, consider whether you can meet the stated deadline. Avoid the common and regrettable tendency to accept with the “I’ll just fit it in” mindset. If your calendar is tight, consider contact ing the commissioning editor to ask for a modest extension up front. Editors would rather work with an insightful review than one lacking specific detail, a predictable result of a last-minute rush. Such pieces can come across as dismissive, and ultimately reflect poorly on the reviewer. Regardless of whether an up front extension is required, make this a hard deadline on your calendar. By being punctual, you signal respect for not only the authors’ time, but also the editor’s and other reviewers’. Now comes the fun part. As a reviewer, you assume the respon sibility of evaluating the study’s scientific rigor, as presented in the manuscript. Does the Methods section provide sufficient details for independent replication? Did the authors perform statistical tests appropriate for the comparisons presented? Do answers unfold logically within the Results narrative? Do experimental outcomes justify the conclusions drawn from each set, or are the conclusions at best a conceptual stretch? Does the abstract encapsulate the study effectively? Typically, a junior investigator finds this aspect of the reviewer role to be most straightforward, as these are points likely emphasized during their training period and indeed implemented when composing their own publications.

December 2023

13

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE BIOPHYSICAL SOCIETY