I’ve also been on the receiving end of reviews.
The difference in the quality of feedback is often striking.
So here are some of my suggestions on how to review manuscripts effectively (thread):
Think of the person who spent hours doing this work. Think of the privilege you have of reviewing their work.
Respect their effort by not rushing yours.
Resolve to be kind. Aim to help. Not hurt.
Your second and third read are critical as they focus your mind on the issues and help frame the problem clearly.
Don’t skip the repeat reads!
Major concerns threatens the conclusions of the authors.
Explain why your suggestion is better. Grow authors, even if the news is bad.
For each minor concern, follow with suggestions on how to fix.
When you start to focus on solutions, you become more thoughtful about problems!
Do they stand alone?
Do they all have legends, labels, axes? Do the tables make sense? Are imp columns missing?
Are all the tables/figures necessary? Are key ones missing?
But it should take you 1-2 hours to write one of these.
If you can’t commit this time to a review, don’t agree to review.
I can’t stress this enough. Do it well. Or don’t do it at all.
And after you have done this, smile for your act of kindness to others.
Your karma and the authors will thank you.
-FIN-