Peer Review Assignment

Peer Review Assigment

  • Due in roughly one month!
  • Idea: Critique an unpublished working paper from NBER series, or from MedRxiv
  • Next slides will provide an overview and structure of a “good” peer review.
  • Source for material is here

First Read: Overview

  • Does your expertise cover all aspects of the article? If not, describe which sections you can respond to and why?

First Read: Overview

  • “Mirror” the article. Make a first draft describing the main aim of the article and why it’s innovative.
    • Think of this as an opportunity to summarize what you think the thrust of the study is about. It provides the author & editor with an opportunity to see another “abstract”—are the reviewers primary takeways the same as the author?

Second Read: The Science

  • For the rest of the review, try and separate your points into “Major” or “Minor” issues and/or suggestions. Using bullet points can help the author(s) keep track when responding to your review.

Second Read: The Science

  • Do the Introduction and Abstract clearly identify the need and relevance for this research?

Second Read: The Science

  • Does the Methodology target the main question(s) appropriately?

Second Read: The Science

  • Are the Results clearly and logically presented, and are they justified by the data presented?
  • Are the figures clear and fully described?

Second Read: The Science

  • Do the Conclusions justifiably respond to main questions the author(s) posed?
  • Do the Conclusions go too far or not far enough based on the results?

Second Read: The Science

  • Is the manuscript’s story cohesive and tightly reasoned throughout?
  • If not, where does it deviate from the central argument?

Final Review Report

Compile your responses to the points above into a single document. Here is a suggested order for your review.

Final Review Report

1. Introduction

  • Mirror the article, your expertise and whether the paper is publishable or if there are fatal flaws
  • Include a short list of the paper’s key strengths and weaknesses.

Final Review Report

2. Major issues

  • If there is a major issue you believe must be addressed in revision, note that explicitly here.

Final Review Report

3. Minor issues and other suggestions.

  • This could include some specification checks or additions to supplementary material you think might be useful.

  • It could include some exploratory comments (‘you might try..’) and/or suggestions

Final Comments

  • It is common to receive 1-2pp reviews.
  • “Borderline” reviews (i.e., peer review of a study that would need a lot of work to accept) often run longer, as you want to lay out explicitly what the author(s) need to do.
  • Common review turnaround times are 2-4weeks for clinical/health services journals, 1-2 months for longer form (e.g., economics).

More Resources

Back to Website