How to do a good Review

- The Editor’s view -

Burg W. Flemming
Editor-in-Chief
Geo-Marine Letters
(2014)
 Ethical Principles

Ethical principles to observe include:

Integrity: Treat the contents of a manuscript confidentially!
Refrain from unfavourable reviewing just because
you are engaged in similar work not yet ready for
publication (i.e. avoid partiality and reviewer bias).
If there is a clash of interests, decline the review!
Fairness: Assess a manuscript by the merits of its content.
Do not impose your personal opinion!
Constructiveness: Always take a positive attitude!
Recommend changes that will improve the Ms.
This may also involve language corrections.
Expertise: Only accept a request to review if you feel
comfortable with the subject matter. Don’t pretend
to know everything about anything!
 Registration as Reviewer (example)

In the past it was common practice to first ask a potential reviewer whether he/she agrees to be
registered prior to being invited to review (example above). In the meantime potential reviewers
are directly invited (cf. next page) and given the choice to accept or decline the invitation.
 Information Information Yes/No Manuscript
to assist Editor to memorize choice details

……
Review Request (example)

Deadline to observe
Manuscript-pdf: Cover Page (example)
 Manuscript-pdf: Title Page (example)

Editable
text-file to
download
 Manuscript-pdf: Figures (example)

High-resolution
figure to
download

Pdf-figures
inherently have
low resolutions
and are therefore
often difficult
to assess
 Step 1
Read the whole manuscript!
While reading, keep track of the following points:
What is the rationale and the main objective?
What are the main results?
Do these add something new to existing knowledge?
Is this of global or regional relevance?
------------
Is the manuscript balanced and logically structured?
Are language, style and expression acceptable?
Are the figures clear and of good quality?
-------------
Take a first decision about a) acceptability, or b) rejection.
In case b: Concentrate on arguments justifying rejection.
In case a: Proceed with detailed review.
 Author publication check

In the age of citation indices as career drivers, the duplication

of data and maceration of data sets for the purpose of
inflating personal publication records is rife.
Therefore, carry out literature searches in the Internet
using key words and author(s) name(s) as search terms,
e.g. in Google Scholar Author Search
and/or AuthorMapper Author Search.

Questions to ask yourself are:

Have parts of the data been published before?
If yes, has this been identified and the reason explained?
Do you get the impression that potentially important data
are being withheld (to be published in a another paper)?
 Review Protocol (example)
To record your criticisms, mark the positions of comments by:
a) successive numbering in the text- or pdf-file (trackchange activated),
b) explanation in a separate protocol (Review Comments).
a) Correcting and marking the text (example):
…., the concentration of organic matter content amounts to 3% by weight
at a mud content of 75%<cf. Comment 10>. This …...
b) Review Comments (example):
General Remarks
The authors present an interesting dataset about …... However, the
manuscript is poorly structured and suffers from excessive language
deficiencies. In addition, specific points need attention (see below).
Specific Comments
……
Comment 10 (line 150): Concentration is defined as mass per unit volume,
whereas a weight% is a mass per unit mass, a measure known as content.
Therefore, change concentrations to contents throughout the manuscript.
Comment 11 (line 166): ……
 Title
Does the title adequately reflect the contents?
The reader should be able to recognise from the title
what the main topic of the paper is.

Does the title provoke interest?

The title should provoke interest in the reader, inviting him/her
to continue reading. After all, an author should want to
“sell“ his/her story to the scientific community. If neccessary,
suggest a more interesting alternative title.

Does the paper deal with a fundamental issue,

or is it an investigative case study?
Fundamental or global issues don‘t need geographic descriptors
in the title. Case studies, on the other, should either identify the
region (e.g. western Mediterranean Sea), or the locality and region
(e.g. Alboran Sea, western Mediterranean) in the title.
 Abstract

The “Abstract“ should be a concise and accurate summary

of what was done why, when, where, how and
with what main results and implications.
Highlights should be emphasized!
Sometimes abstracts merely present statements
of intent, i.e. a list of what the paper deals with.
Such abstracts miss the point of their purpose
and are therefore unacceptable.
On the other hand, abstracts should not replace papers,
i.e. they should not be excessively long. In most cases
the relevant content can be condensed into 250 words.
--------------
General remark:
Authors should refrain from using the personal form!
(e.g. „I (We) found that ….“, and instead use the third
person form, e.g. „It was found that ….“!)
 Introduction

The “Introduction” should begin with a

general discourse of the scientific issue(s)
(problems, questions) dealt with in the manuscript
and what other authors (and perhaps also textbooks)
worldwide have had to say about it.
This should be brief and selective, i.e. it does not need to be
exhaustive, but it should list important milestones and/or
address the most important points.
After this general overview, the regional or local relevance
of the issue should be highlighted, and why it was
chosen to be investigated, i.e.
the Introduction should proceed from
the general to the particular.
 Introduction (cont.)

Are the rationale and scientific objectives (aims) of the study

clearly stated at the end of the Introduction?
This can (but need not) take the form of an hypothesis
that is to be tested (i.e. to be verified or falsified).
Hypotheses are compulsory in experimental work
(in both lab and field experiments).
In the case of investigative studies, a hypothesis can only
meaningfully be formulated if the state of knowledge
has reached an advanced stage.
Results must not be pre-empted in the Introduction
(i.e. statements of the type “It will be shown that ….” are not
acceptable. After all, when the study aims were conceived,
the author(s) did not know what the outcome would be)
 Introduction (cont.)

Introductions are sometimes excessively long because of space-

consuming descriptions of the physical setting of a study area.
In particular where the physical setting is multifaceted or complex,
the description should be presented in a separate section titled:
“Physical setting” or “Study area”
The study area should be illustrated by a locality map, either in
this section or already in the “Introduction”. The locality map can
also show track lines, sample positions, etc. addressed later in
“Materials and methods”.
All the locations mentioned in the text must be shown somewhere,
i.e. either on the locality map or in another figure.
 Materials and methods

In practice, this section is frequently unsatisfactory.

A concise account of all methods (also statistical methods),
data sources, etc. must be given. Only in cases of
well known “standard” procedures may it suffice to
refer to the pertinent literature (e.g. age dating).
If a classification scheme is used, it is absolutely essential
to reveal the source of the scheme because often there are
several schemes to choose from, all of which may use
the same descriptors for categories with different limits.
Although authors are free to choose any particular scheme,
it may in some cases be appropriate to justify the choice.
NB: Figures presenting results must not be cited in this section!
 Results
Some journals accept combined “Results and discussion” sections,
others insist on separating the two. The latter is to be preferred
because it avoids confusion between the data of the author(s)
and those of other studies.
Results must be presented in logical order, and
figures may not be cited out of sequence!
Most figures belong here. These must be described accurately!
In the case of combined Results and discussion, the data must be
interpreted and discussed in a wider context with appropriate literature
citations. If only Results are presented, there is no reason for citations.
Figures should, as far as possible, be standardized in format
and follow the journal-specific instructions to authors.
Maps should be geo-referenced with some Latitudes and Longitudes,
including an E (for East) or W (for West), and N (North) or S (South)
along each axis. Where appropriate, figures should display a bar scale.
 Discussion
Unless a separate “Conclusions” section is offered, this
section can also be titled “Discussion and conclusions”.
In this section, the results must be discussed point by point, in
logical order and concisely in the light of the international literature.
Repetition of results must be avoided!
New or conflicting findings should be highlighted
and, if possible, explained. If new interpretations are presented,
these must be plausibly justified.
The discussion should concentrate on the central issue(s) of
the study and not go overboard in detail and length
(unless it is a review paper).
Important conclusions should be added at the end of each point of
discussion (if not saved for a separate “Conclusions” section).
 Conclusions

Conclusions should be concise and to the point,

highlighting new findings and their implications.

NB: Conclusions are not a summary of the results!

(the Abstract serves that purpose)
 Acknowledgements

There are always particular persons, institutions and

sponsors who deserve acknowledgement.
Where appropriate, the funding organisation should be
cited together with the grant number.
In addition, the efforts of reviewers should be acknowledged
in revised papers. Although authors may not always agree
with critical comments, constructive reviews generally
result in (sometimes substantially) improved manuscripts.
(NB: editors often take care of this aspect)
 References

The References are a sore point of many manuscripts,

there rarely being a completely correct submission.
Every citation in the text, in figure captions, on figures,
and in tables must also be contained in the reference list
and vice versa (i.e. the reference list may not contain
literature not cited in the text and vice versa).
Citations must be correct (i.e. name(s), date, title, journal,
journal number, page numbers) and complete
(e.g. in the case of conference proceedings: name(s)
of the editor(s), title of the proceedings, name, date
and place of the conference, as well as the
publisher and the city).
Citations must strictly follow the format
prescribed by the journal!
 Figures

Figures should be assessed as follows:

a) Is space used economically?
b) Are all annotations and legends legible at the anticipated
scale of reproduction (column or page width)?
c) Are figures perhaps too cluttered?
d) Are colour schemes compatible and clearly distinguishable?
e) Do maps and profiles have appropriate scales/bar scales?
(NB: ratio map scales, e.g. 1:100,000, are not acceptable)
f) Is the orientation of a map clear (North arrow)?
g) Are notations correctly written?
(e.g., “5 km” instead of “5km”; “TWT (s)” instead of “Seconds (TWT)”;
m s-1 instead of m.s-1 or ms-1. This also applies to the text)
 Example of an unacceptable Figure

Superfluous panel
(no gain in information
relative to locality map)

Poor resolution!
Poor resolution! (vertical scale?)
(vertical scale?)

Superfluous part
(data not dealt with)

Superfluous part
(data not dealt with)

This is the only relevant information!

 Submit Review

When the review has been completed:

- Go to “Submit review”
- Click on “Review decision” and choose appropriate category,
e.g. “moderate revision”
- Copy and paste your review protocol into the box
“Blind comments to author”
- Add confidential comments in box “Comments to editor”
- Under “Attachments”, upload the edited text and/or any other
supplementary information (e.g. an important paper)