Learn what to watch out for as you read a manuscript so that writing the review comes easily | In this issue, we’ll cover the key things to watch out for as you read a manuscript so that writing the review comes easily. Follow along with the exercises for hands-on practice.
PLOS Peer Review Toolkit
Read like a Reviewer
As a researcher, you probably read journal articles all the time–but reading for information is different than reading to assess and critique. In this issue, we’ll cover the key things to watch out for as you read a manuscript so that writing the review comes easily. Follow along with the exercises for hands-on practice.
“All things be ready if our minds be so” — Shakespeare
Start with the guidelines
Computer
Different journals publish different kinds of content, so they’ll often ask reviewers to focus on different aspects of the manuscript. Before you read the manuscript, consult the journal’s reviewer guidelines.

Try it: Pick a journal that you read regularly and find out:
❑ The kinds of articles the journal publishes.
❑ The fields of research within the journals’ scope.
❑ Their criteria for publication.
❑ The level of advance or novelty that is needed.
❑ Ethical or data requirements.
❑ What format your review should be submitted in.
Read the manuscript
Read
Read the manuscript through once for a ‘big picture’ assessment.

Try it: See if you can establish:
❑ The main research question.
❑ The key findings of the study.
❑ How the study relates to published literature on the topic.
Download
Tip
TOP TIP
Sleep on it! - Give your mind a break between readings to let the new information sink in.
Read it again
Notebook
Now that you have a good idea of what the manuscript is about, read it again and take some notes.

Try it: Check that the manuscript fulfills the most important requirements.
❑ Adequate summary of main research question and key findings.
❑ Fair portrayal of the previous literature (list any papers that are missing or shouldn’t be included).
❑ Figures and supplementary figures (and their legends) make sense and support the findings.
❑ The experiments or interventions are appropriate for the research question.
❑ Clear description of the methods (with enough detail for the study to be reproducible).
❑ Reporting best practices have been followed.
❑ Ethical best practices have been followed.
❑ The findings (including statistical analysis) support the conclusions.
❑ The study demonstrates the advance in the field that the journal requires.
❑ There is enough data to allow re-analysis by a reader.
❑ The structure and prose of the manuscript is clear.
Download
FULL GUIDE
Tip
TOP TIP
• Take your notes in full sentences and save time by pasting them straight into your review.
• Note the section, paragraph, figure or line number. This will direct the editor and author directly to your example, and save you time explaining your point.
Next issue
1. Find a preprint you’re interested in on arXiv, bioRxiv, or your favorite server.
2. Practice reading and taking notes using the checklist above.
3. Share your work with us to get feedback and ask questions. We’ll also enter you for a chance to win a free t-shirt.
Next issue we’ll give you a step-by-step process for writing your review!

Congratulations to our issue #2 winners: Mukesh Thakur, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Vishnu Tripathi, Halima Dawood, Livio Povenzi.
Twitter Facebook Email Website
Public Library of Science
1160 Battery St. Suite 225
San Francisco, CA 94111
US