How to review a paper

1. Objective:

The aim of the procedure is to establish a structured approach for reviewing a paper. The review should be comprehensive, covering all major aspects of the paper, and provide constructive feedback to the authors.

2. Steps:

Step 1: Preliminary Steps

  1. Understand the Scope: Ensure the paper falls within your area of expertise. Check if the journal or conference guidelines specify any focus areas or review criteria.
  2. Read the Guidelines: Review the instructions provided by the journal or conference. Understand the expected format and type of feedback (e.g., detailed critique, accept/reject recommendation, etc.).
  3. Initial Read: Skim the abstract, introduction, and conclusion to grasp the paper’s purpose, contributions, and main findings.

The output of the above steps could be summarized in a brief note.

Step 2: Detailed Reading and Analysis

Read the paper thoroughly, focusing on the following aspects and taking detailed notes:

  1. Abstract and Title: Is the abstract clear, concise, and reflective of the paper’s content? Does the title accurately describe the paper?
  2. Introduction: Does it provide sufficient background and context? Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated? Is the significance of the study well articulated?
  3. Methodology: Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed? Are the tools, datasets, or models described for reproducibility? Are ethical considerations addressed (if applicable)?
  4. Results: Are the findings clearly presented? Do the results address the research question? Are statistical methods used appropriately, and are the results significant?
  5. Discussion: Does the discussion interpret the results meaningfully? Are the implications of the findings highlighted? Are limitations acknowledged?
  6. Conclusion: Does it summarize the key findings effectively? Does it align with the evidence presented? Are future research directions suggested?
  7. References: Are the references relevant, recent, and correctly cited? Does the paper properly credit prior work?
  8. Figures, Tables, and Supplementary Material: Are the visuals clear, labeled, and appropriately referenced in the text? Do they add value or clarity to the discussion?

The detailed analysis should be documented systematically, highlighting key points and areas for improvement. The notes can be written on the printed manuscript or in a separate document. There should be a strict structure to ensure all aspects are covered.

Step 3: Assessment Criteria

Evaluate the paper based on the following criteria. Summarize your assessment for each criterion, providing detailed explanations and examples where necessary:

  1. Originality and Novelty: Is the research new and unique? Does it advance the field in a meaningful way?
  2. Significance: Does the paper address an important problem? Will it interest the target audience?
  3. Clarity: Is the paper well-written and logically organized? Are technical terms and concepts explained clearly?
  4. Validity and Reliability: Are the claims supported by evidence? Are there any apparent errors, inconsistencies, or unsupported conclusions?
  5. Ethical Standards: Are ethical guidelines followed (e.g., in studies involving human or animal subjects)?
  6. Recommendation: Based on the assessment, provide a clear recommendation to the editor. This could be a suggestion for acceptance, revision, or rejection, supported by detailed reasoning.

The assessment should be written down in a structured manner, ensuring that each criterion is thoroughly evaluated and justified.

Step 4: Writing the Review

Compile your notes and assessments into a coherent review document. The review should be well-organized, clearly written, and provide constructive feedback to the authors. It should follow the journal or conference guidelines for review format and content.

The review should include:

  • Recommendation: Clearly state your recommendation to the editor (accept, accept with minor revisions, major revisions required, reject).

Then, if the paper is not rejected but accepted recommended for revision, the review should include:

  • Summary of the Paper: Briefly summarise the paper's objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions.
  • Major Strengths: Highlight the positive aspects of the paper, such as originality, significance, clarity, innovative approach, strong methodology, etc.
  • (major revision) Major Concerns: Identify the main weaknesses or areas that need improvement. Provide specific examples and suggestions for enhancement.
  • (major/minor revision) Minor Concerns: Not smaller issues like typos, formatting errors, unclear phrasing or minor inconsistencies.

If the paper is recommended for rejection, the review should include:

  • Reasons for Rejection: Clearly explain the reasons for the rejection, citing specific examples or issues that make the paper unsuitable for publication.

The review should be professional, respectful, and objective, avoiding personal biases or harsh language. It should be comprehensive, addressing all major aspects of the paper and providing detailed feedback to the authors.

It can be written in Latex or Markdown, following the journal or conference guidelines for review submission.

Step 5: Final Checks

Before submitting the review, perform the following checks: 1. Tone and Professionalism: Ensure the review is constructive, respectful, and objective. Avoid personal biases or harsh language. 2. Completeness: Verify that your review addresses all major aspects of the paper and provides detailed feedback on each criterion. Double-check for any overlooked errors or inconsistencies. 3. Formatting and Guidelines: Review the journal or conference guidelines to ensure your review meets the required format, length, and content specifications. 4. Confidentiality: Ensure that the review does not contain any personal information or confidential details that could compromise anonymity.

Step 6: Submission

Submit the review according to the journal or conference platform. Follow the submission instructions carefully, ensuring that the review is uploaded or submitted correctly.

3. Additional Information:

None.