How to Be a Good Reviewer (Without Being a Jerk)

Peer review is one of the pillars of science, but let’s be honest, most of us have read reviews that range from clueless to petty to outright destructive. From sloppy reviews that give no real criticism, to overzealous brainstorming sessions listing every possible experiment under the sun, the spectrum of bad reviewing is wide. If you're going to spend your precious time reviewing a paper, here’s how to do it right and efficiently.

Focus on the Main Message
Yes, it's that simple. This is your main job. Avoid nitpicking. That means not giving suggestions that take a lot of work and make the paper 1% better, not obsessing over whether references are in perfect order, whether your own paper was cited, or whether the commas are in the right place. This is not the time to do formatting QA. Focus on what really matters. Avoid the “I prefer method A, this is method B, therefore it must be wrong” mentality. Reviewing is not about your personal preferences; it's about evaluating whether a study adds something meaningful to the field. Everything else is secondary.

So what should you focus on? Ask yourself just two questions:

1. Is the main finding sufficiently supported by the data?

2. Is the main finding important or conceptual enough to be interesting to the journal’s readership?

If the answer to both is yes, great - now it’s worth going into more detail. Dig into the methodology, stats, clarity, and figures. Be constructive. Suggest improvements, not punishments. And please, for the love of science (and to preserve the sanity of the poor PhD candidate who wrote the paper), do not ask for extra experiments just because you can. Only ask for what’s truly necessary to support the main point.

If the answer to either question is no, then say so. Clearly. Concisely. Respectfully. There’s no need to drown the authors in detailed technical feedback if the conceptual foundation isn’t there. Just point out the core issues and let it go.

That’s it. Reviewing doesn’t have to be painful for you or the authors. Review like you’d want to be reviewed. Simple, fair, and just enough.