Dr Lisa Nivison-Smith Profile picture
NHMRC Research fellow at @UNSWoptomvsci ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ studying the retina & macular degeneration #WomeninSTEM ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ”ฌ Mother ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€๐Ÿ‘งโ€๐Ÿ‘ฆ #scicomm enthusiast ๐Ÿ“ฃ Cake lover ๐Ÿ˜‹

Apr 20, 2022, 10 tweets

Every journal has a textbox asking peer reviewers for "Confidential comments to the editor"

What should you write here?

A thread ๐Ÿงต

@AcademicChatter

Issues with scope/format

Editors check papers fit the journal requirements before sending out to peer review.

If you think the paper is outside scope or a type not published by the journal, notify the editor so they can closely rereview

Ethical issues

Similarly, editors check author disclosures, COIs and study ethics prior to peer review.

If you think a COI affects study integrity or a study is not ethical, notify the editor so they can investigate.

Limits in expertise

Editors ask you to review as an expert in the field.

If part/s of a paper are beyond your expertise, tell the editor so they can ensure these areas are covered by other reviewers (important for multidisciplinary papers)

Plagiarism

Most journals check for plagiarism via automated software prior to peer review.

If you suspect plagiarism, you should cite the original source so the editor can follow up.

Your decision rationale

Editors make the final decision. This can be hard when peer reviewers disagree.

Giving a 1-2 line summary on why you chose reject, major revision or accept clarifies your decision making and makes it easier for editors to reconcile disagreeing reports

Availability to rereview

Most journals ask if you're available for rereview

If this is not the case, you can notify the editor of your availability to review the paper if resubmitted.

Nothing to say?

Comments to the editor are usually optional.

So if you have given all the information needed in other parts of the review, leave this box blank. Editors will be thankful for a concise review

TL/DR

Comments for editors in peer review

1. Out of scope/wrong format
2. Ethical issues
3. Limits in your expertise
4. Decision rationale
5. Plagiarism
6. Availability to rereview

If you enjoyed this thread, please RT the first tweet.

And follow me @LNivisonSmith if you are interested in

- macular degeneration research
- #WomeninSTEM
- #scicomm
- general musings from a mother trying to survive a career in #academia

Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.

A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.

Keep scrolling