How to be a good reviewer

Margaret DeLacy's picture


The H-Net Feeding the Elephant blog on the Book Channel network has a new post by Michael Chibnik entitled "Journal Peer Review: Tips for Being an Effective Reviewer."  It  outlines the duties of a helpful peer review of manuscript articles from the perspective of the editor of a well-regarded scholarly journal.

You can find it at

See also:  Feeding the Elephant: A Forum for Scholarly Communications.

A recent article in Pediatrics reports on a study of single- versus double-blinded reviewing. They asked reviewers for their own journal which they preferred, and the results were almost evenly divided -- 51% preferred double-blind, 38% preferred single-blind, and 11% preferred an open reviewing process.

I'm not sure if this is behind a paywall, but here's the citation:

Recommendations for Blinded Peer Review: A Survey of High-Quality Pediatrics Reviewers
John M. Morrison, Lewis R. First and Alex R. Kemper
Pediatrics August 2020, 146 (2) e20201403

I have to say, after many years of being on both sides of peer reviewing, in a narrower field it is often not difficult to figure out who is the author of an article, or who is the reviewer of your article. You might know them well enough to recognize their writing style, their pet peeves, and so forth. Not always, of course!