8/7/2019 TOP 10 MISTAKES FOR REVIEWERS

1/2

EDITORS PAGE

Top Ten Mistakes for Reviewers to Avoid

Alan S. Pearlman, MD, FASE, Seattle, Washington

My role as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Society of

Echocardiography (JASE) has given me the opportunity to review not

only a lot of manuscripts, but also an even greater number of reviews

provided by our large pool of peer reviewers. While I am not an un-

biased observer, I would observe that the large majority of thereviews

we have received have been done carefully and constructively.

I learned a few years back, from a book about medical editing,1

that an effective editor must be able to provide to authors written

feedback that is timely, courteous, clear, and informative. Of course,

such feedback depends heavily on comments and suggestions from

the reviewers as well as those that stem from discussions with the

editors. While it is for others to judge, I would like to think that the

critiques that we provide to our prospective authors are useful and

do contribute to the quality of the articles that we publish, and

even to those that eventually wind up being published elsewhere.

In my opinion, the peer review process is really about quality

improvement; a decision to accept or reject a given manuscript is

more the byproduct of the review process than a specific goal. While

I believe that JASEs peer review process generally does work well,

I have seen an occasional and notable gaffe. In hopes of suggesting

some areas for quality improvement in the peer review process,

I would like to discuss briefly ten mistakes that good reviewers would

no doubt avoid. Just to be crystal clear, the following is a list of things

notto do when reviewing a manuscript!

10. Use highly critical or pejorative language. If the purpose

of peer review is to provide constructive feedback to prospective au-

thors, and not just to decide if their manuscript ought to live or die,then it is notvery effective to couch commentsin such a way that they

sound mean and nasty. I dont believe that much is accomplished

by comments such as the authors clearly did not recognize that.

or the authors have ignored work by., or the authors obviously

do not understand that. There are ways to point out areas for im-

provement in a kind yet firm manner without being insulting. An ad-

age that seems to apply here is the one about attracting more bees

with honey than with vinegar. The good reviewer sticks to factual

observations, avoids excessive criticism, and phrases suggestions in

a constructive manner. This does not mean that critical comments

should be sugarcoated, only that they are more effective if phrased

in a balanced manner.

9. Make comments that suggest that you did not read thepaper carefully. In my career, I have received plenty of rejection

decisions from journal editors every author has. I believe that noth-

ing makes an author more upset than the idea that his or her paper

was turned down because of critical comments made by reviewers

who did not take the time and make the effort to read the manuscript

carefully. As an editor,

I have on occasion

(not often) run across

a comment that criticizes

a manuscript for failing

to provide certain data

or to discuss a particular

issue, when it was clear

from my reading of the

paper that the authors

did in fact include those

data or discuss those is-

sues. I confess that I

would find it difficult to

send such comments

to authors, since they

imply that we have not

reviewed their paper

with sufficient care. Reviewers are inevitably also authors, and good

reviewers always remember the Golden Rule.8. Make a habit of citing your own publications. Most of-

ten, the peer review process is conducted anonymously; in fact,

some journals have tried sending articles for review with the names

of the authors removed. I believe that most reviewers are more com-

fortable writing a critique when they believe that the author of the

paper they are commenting upon will not know for sure who wrote

the critique after all, the tables might be turned in the future! Everyso often, I see a reviewer make liberal reference in his comments to

the authors to publications that were overlooked and should have

been considered. When the same author wrote all of these publica-

tions, it takes little imagination for the authors of the article being cri-

tiqued to figure out who might be so familiar with all of those articles.

Clearly, a reviewer should point out relevant literature that ought to

have been discussed, since sometimes an author may have missed

these publications. However, it is best when the reviewer makes bal-

anced suggestions to consider key publications, and not just his own.

7. Use English language badly while being critical of the

authors use of English language use.This is oneof my favorites,

and I have kept track of a few examples. One reviewer commented

The addition of extraneous words and sentences throughout themanuscript appear distracting from the essential message when he

could have said Please write simply and clearly. Another reviewer

wrote, Multiple spelling and grammer [sic] mistakes noted, failing

to note that he had failed to include a verb in his sentence, and had

spelled grammer incorrectly! I have great sympathy for readers,

and do not like to see them forced to read papers that are badly writ-

ten and therefore hard to understand. In my view, it is great when

reviewers point out ways in which writing can be improved and

points made more effectively. However, if a reviewer is going to

criticize the authors use of English language spelling, grammar, and

phrasing, then he ought to do it using correct language conventions.6. Copy your Comments to the Authors and use them as

Comments for the Editors. It is worth noting that Comments to

the Authors and Comments for the Editors serve very different

From the Division of Cardiology, University of Washington School of Medicine,

Seattle, Washington.

Reprint requests: Alan S. Pearlman, MD, FASE, Division of Cardiology, University

of Washington School of Medicine, Box 356422, Seattle, Washington 98195

(E-mail: apearlmn@u.washington.edu).

0894-7317/$36.00

doi:10.1016/j.echo.2010.04.001

573

mailto:apearlmn@u.washington.edumailto:apearlmn@u.washington.edu

8/7/2019 TOP 10 MISTAKES FOR REVIEWERS

2/2

purposes. As noted earlier, the reviewers comments to the authors

ought to focus on thematerial presented in the manuscript, and ought

to point out areas needing additional attention and revision. Com-

ments to the authors ought to help the authors to improve their arti-

cle for example, by suggesting that the authors include additional

measures or revise the methods used to make those measures, add

more patients, analyze data differently, or expand their discussionof specific issues. Comments for the editors do not need to reiterate

those points after all, the editors can read the Comments to the Au-

thors themselves, so copying those comments and pasting them into

the Comments for the Editors section accomplishes nothing useful.

Comments for the Editors ought to include the reviewers recommen-

dation that is, whether the paper ought to be accepted without

changes (this is a rare occurrence for an initial submission), revised

and reconsidered, or rejected outright. Even more important are

the reasons for the recommendation, the logic that supports the ad-

vice given. The most helpful reviewers provide a solid, evidence based

rationale to support their recommendation so that it is not just an

expert opinion, but one based on solid facts. Such comments help

the editors decide not only if a given paper is important enough to

publish, but also if that paper is better than other candidates for pub-

lication since priorities often must be established. The reasons sup-

porting the reviewers recommendation are at least as important as

the recommendation itself.

5. Do not include any Comments for the Editors. This

ought to be self-explanatory. If, as just noted, the reviewers com-

ments for the editors are where he ought to explain the rationale

for the recommendation he has made, then failure to provide any

comments effectively means that the reviewer has missed the oppor-

tunity to give weight to his recommendation and to help the editors

understand the real strengths or shortcomings of the manuscript.

4. Recommend acceptance or rejection in Comments to

the Authors. The decision to accept or decline a paper is one

made by the editors, and not by an individual reviewer. It is not un-common for two experienced reviewers to disagree on the merits

of a paper, and in this instance the editors consider the pros and

cons very carefully and sometimes get additional reviewer input.

On occasion, an article that one reviewer thinks is terrific has major

flawsthat a second reviewer points outin a clear andconvincing man-

ner. Conversely, we have also seen articles that had important short-

comings when submitted initially, but which (by hard work on the

part of the authors) were markedly improved after revision and

ultimately merited publication. It is confusing to authors when they

receive a rejection letter that includes a reviewers comment that

This is an extremely important paper and should be published.

Reviewers should make comments about the suitability of a manu-

script for publication but not in the comments to be transmittedto the authors. Such recommendations (and that is what they are

recommendations, and not final decisions) should be reserved for

the reviewers comments to the editors. Clinicians are well aware of

the adage the physician advises; the patient decides. Applied to

peer review, this could be rephrased as the reviewer advises; the

editors decide.

3. Consider that you must always accept invitations to

review. Editors understand that it is the rare reviewer who is always

able to review when asked, who always turns in his review promptly,

and whoalwaysdoes a spectacular job. We have a few such reviewers,

and they are truly special. It is probably fair to observe that good re-

viewers are almost always busy people who have other important

commitments, and that most good reviewers are asked to reviewby multiple journals. Sometimes a reviewer simply does not have

the time to review in a timely manner. I would rather have him de-

cline my invitation promptly, and to suggest a colleague or two

who would be well qualified to review, rather than to accept the re-

sponsibility to review and then not be able to come through with

a good review in a timely manner. A quick reply that states Im sorry,

I cant take on this work now, but Dr. XXX would be a good alternate

choice, and he can be reached at. allows the editor to keep the re-

view process moving along smoothly.

2. Make a habit of turning in your review late. I realize that

doing a good job as a peer reviewer takes time and sometimes seems

to offer few rewards; peer reviewers are not paid for reviewing, and

they would probably make their bosses happier by using the time

to write their own papers instead of using it to review papers written

by others. On the other hand, authors seem invariably anxious about

the fate of their submitted manuscripts, and editors like to be able to

brag about the efficiency of their peer review process. I understand

that sometimes circumstances arise that interfere with prompt com-

pletion of a promised review, but this should be the exception and

not the rule. It is difficult for authors and for editors when peer re-

viewers are inevitably late with their comments, and I can say with

conviction that probably the least enjoyable responsibility of an editor

is having to hound a reviewer repeatedly to turn in his late review.

1. Agree to review a manuscript, but then dont turn in

a review and ignore requests to complete the work you

promised to do. As you might imagine, this is an incredibly annoy-

ing situation, but it does occasionally happen. An editor must often bepatient, but everyones patience has a limit, and sometimes it is neces-

sary to move on and to cut loose thereviewer who agreed to review

but then failed to do so. A promised review that never materializes

forces the editor either to invite additional reviewers and thereby to

prolong the review process, or to make a decision without the input

of an expert whose opinion was wanted.

As noted earlier, I believe that peer review is about quality im-

provement. While most of our reviewers do an excellent job of cri-

tiquing manuscripts in a careful and constructive manner, the

opportunity to observe the occasional mistakes made by others gives

reviewers a chance to do an even better job the next time they are in-

vited to review a manuscript, either byJASEor by another journal.

I hope this short list is helpful in that regard. As always, if you havecomments or suggestions, I can be reached atjaseeditor@asecho.org.

REFERENCE

1. Morgan P. An InsidersGuidefor Medical Authors andEditors. Philadelphia,

PA: ISI Press; 1986. pp 81-3.

574 Pearlman Journal of the American Society of EchocardiographyMay 2010

mailto:jaseeditor@asecho.orgmailto:jaseeditor@asecho.org