For a graduate student or postdoc, being a reviewer for conference papers and journal articles is an excellent way to gain insight into the academic publishing process, build skills in giving and receiving feedback, and create connections with the academic community. However, this can also be a bit of a daunting process for emerging scholars who may feel as if they aren’t qualified enough to review the work of their peers - especially when they may be reviewing work written by more experienced scholars. With that in mind, I would like to offer some tips that have helped me as a reviewer:
Firstly, remember that you are not the only reviewer for the article. While your review will help senior reviewers, editors, or conference chairs to make their final decisions, your own review will likely not be a “make it or break it” moment for the paper. Just do the best you can. Many reviewing systems also have space for a reviewer to rate their expertise with the topic area, so there’s no need to say you’re an expert if you don’t feel like you are one.
My overarching principle is that I want to be constructive, but kind. I aim to be the reviewer I would want to have on my own work, and word my feedback in ways that I would be comfortable saying, in person, to a colleague or friend. No one likes an overly critical or harsh review - remember that the paper you are reviewing was written by real people, who may be emerging scholars as well.
I aim to give a mix of positive and formative feedback. Point out the things that you like, sentences that are well-written, strong arguments, and good organization. When giving more critical feedback, I tend to use sentence starters such as “I am confused about…”, “I am curious about..”, “I would recommend adding more detail about…” etc. I also may focus on figures and tables (do I understand the main idea they are trying to get across?), add recommendations for relevant literature, or suggest new ways to organize sentences/paragraphs to improve the flow of the paper.
I sometimes feel pressure to judge the main idea/argument/framework to determine if it’s “good enough” for the field - and how can I do that as a relative newbie to the field? Don’t forget: even as a graduate student or postdoc, you are a part of the field too. You’ve taken courses, read papers, formulated your own ideas, and written your own papers. That said, I tend to think about my reviews more personally, rather than trying to speak as “the field” as a whole. Examples: does the argument make sense to me? Am I confused about anything? Is there enough detail for me to assess the methods/analysis? Can I easily see the connections between the theoretical framework, methods, analysis, and discussion? Can I see the application of this research to my own work? Chances are, if I can see some areas for improvement with my relatively fresh eyes, likely others with more experience than me will too.
I hope that these tips can help graduate students and postdocs feel more comfortable about participating in the peer review process!
Additional resources: