Trail Stop 3: Reading Like a Reviewer

Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer: A Writer’s Camp Learning Trail

Christina M. Nyirati

Writer’s Camp Counselor

---

Focus on your reading to be an efficient reviewer.

---

I did not begin my professional life reading like a reviewer. I first read as a practicing nurse, searching for knowledge to help me care for patients and families. Later, as an educator and scholar, I learned to read differently again—evaluating research findings, connecting ideas, and building knowledge for nursing practice and research. Only later did I realize that reading as a reviewer required another shift entirely.

Reviewers do not read only to learn or evaluate knowledge. They read to understand a manuscript deeply, assess its contribution, and help guide the author toward a stronger scholarly work. Reading as a reviewer is not simply “reading more carefully.” It requires a different kind of attention.

Across disciplines, reviewer reading is often described as both analytical and constructive. Strong reviewers ask not only, “What is wrong with this manuscript?” but also, “What is this author trying to contribute, and how can the work become stronger?” Reviewing is not simply a technical exercise. It requires attentiveness, fairness, and respect for the work of another scholar.

The First Read: Getting the Big Picture

The first read is about understanding the manuscript as a whole. Early in my experience as a reviewer, I sometimes focused too quickly on awkward wording or sentence-level problems before fully understanding what the author was trying to say. Over time, I learned that this often made it harder to recognize the manuscript’s larger purpose and contribution.

The first read is not really about deciding whether you “like” a manuscript. It is about understanding what kind of scholarly conversation the author is trying to enter. Many experienced reviewers recommend reading the manuscript once without making extensive notes, focusing first on orientation rather than critique.

During this first pass, it can be helpful to ask:

• What is the purpose of the manuscript?
• Is the topic appropriate for the journal?
• What is the main contribution?
• Is the manuscript coherent and understandable?
• Who is the intended audience?

This first read also requires resisting the temptation to immediately correct small problems. A manuscript may contain awkward sentences and still present an important idea. Conversely, a polished manuscript may lack a meaningful contribution. The goal of the first read is to step back and see the manuscript as a whole before focusing on details.

The Second Read: Looking More Closely

If the first read is about orientation, the second read is more analytical. This is where reviewers look more carefully at how the manuscript is constructed and whether the ideas, methods, and conclusions fit together coherently.

Spotting Strengths and Weaknesses

Early in my reviewing, I sometimes focused so heavily on weaknesses that I overlooked what the manuscript did well. Strong reviews acknowledge both. Editors and authors benefit from understanding not only what needs improvement, but also what is working effectively. Look for strengths such as a well-developed argument, meaningful clinical implications, or a clear connection between findings and purpose.

Assessing Organization and Clarity

Ask yourself whether the manuscript flows logically from one section to another. Does the discussion build naturally from the findings? Are ideas introduced clearly enough for readers to follow? When you repeatedly reread sections trying to understand the author’s point, the problem is often not your misunderstanding, but a need for clearer organization or development of ideas.

Evaluating Methods and Frameworks

You should consider whether the manuscript’s methods, conceptual framework, or overall approach fit the purpose of the paper. For research manuscripts, this may involve evaluating methodological clarity and appropriateness. For conceptual or theoretical papers, the focus may be more on coherence and alignment between the framework and the argument being presented.

Checking the Conclusions

At times, you may notice conclusions that extend beyond what the data or argument can reasonably support. At other times, important implications may be understated. One of my mentors, Dr. Grayce Sills, often reminded me to “make the obvious, obvious.” I still think about that advice when reviewing manuscripts. If important connections between evidence and conclusions are left implicit, reviewers can help authors strengthen those links for future readers.

Flagging Areas For Clarification

As questions arise, make brief notes about areas needing clarification. If methods are incomplete, terminology inconsistent, or ideas underdeveloped, record those concerns for later comments. Focus primarily on issues that affect clarity, coherence, and understanding rather than trying to identify every minor problem.

Starting the Sandbox Draft

During the second read, I often begin jotting down rough notes, recording page numbers, questions, strong passages, and areas needing clarification. I do not worry about polished wording at this stage. These early observations frequently become the foundation for the constructive feedback later provided to both the editor and the author.

Big Picture vs. Details: Finding the Right Balance

When I first started reviewing, I fell into what I now think of as the “grammar trap.” I spent hours correcting APA formatting, rewriting awkward sentences, and marking minor errors. At the time, I thought I was being thorough. Eventually, however, I realized I was focusing so much on sentence-level details that I was sometimes missing larger conceptual issues in the manuscript.

Editors are not primarily looking for copyediting. Journals have editorial staff and software that assist with grammar and formatting. What editors most need from reviewers is thoughtful analysis, professional insight, and clear feedback about the manuscript’s overall contribution.

One of the most important reviewing skills is learning to distinguish major concerns from minor ones. I now try to focus first on questions such as:

• Is the purpose clear?
• Does the methodology fit the research question or study design?
• Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
• Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution?

At the same time, I try to acknowledge what the manuscript does well and offer constructive suggestions for improvement rather than simply listing problems.

Minor concerns still matter, but they should not overwhelm the review. Reviewers who focus too heavily on typos, formatting, or long “laundry lists” of small corrections may overlook larger concerns involving methodology, interpretation, ethics, or coherence.

Over time, I learned that shifting my attention from proofreading toward higher-level analysis not only improved the quality of my reviews, but also made the reviewing process more thoughtful, manageable, and enjoyable.

Taking Notes Effectively: Finding Your Own System

There is no single “right” way to take notes during a manuscript review. The goal is simply to develop a consistent approach that helps organize your thinking and reduces the need to repeatedly reread sections of the manuscript.

Some reviewers annotate directly on the manuscript using highlights, comments, or handwritten notes. Others keep a separate document open while reading, recording strengths, concerns, questions, and page numbers. Some begin drafting portions of their formal review during the second read-through, gradually building what I earlier described as a “sandbox draft.” Others rely heavily on the journal’s review template or checklist.

Personally, I prefer keeping the manuscript open on one side of my screen and a separate document open on the other. Separating my rough notes from the manuscript itself helps me identify broader patterns and organize my final comments more clearly.

Regardless of the method used, effective reviewer notes identify major concerns, highlight strengths, suggest possible improvements, and remain constructive in tone. Reviewers do not need perfect notes during the first or second read. In fact, some of the most useful observations begin as rough thoughts that become clearer as the review develops.

How Much Time Should a Review Take?

When I accepted my first review invitation, I worried that a thorough review might consume an entire weekend. Fortunately, I quickly learned that thoughtful reviewing does not need to become an exhausting, multi-day task.

Most experienced reviewers report spending somewhere between one and three hours on an average review, although the time required varies depending on several factors:

• Manuscript length,
• Methodological complexity,
• Familiarity with the topic, and
• The type of manuscript being reviewed.

A brief clinical column will usually require less time than a complex research study or theoretical paper. Manuscripts that are less familiar to you may require additional reading and reflection. At the same time, you should recognize the limits of your expertise and decline reviews that you are not qualified to evaluate.

Over time, I learned that thoughtful reviewing is not about producing an exhaustive line-by-line correction of the manuscript. Editors and authors are not expecting perfection. What they most need is focused, honest, and constructive feedback.

What Editors Value Most

Editors are not looking for reviewers to rewrite manuscripts or act as adversarial critics. Instead, they rely on reviewers as thoughtful professional partners who can evaluate the quality, clarity, and contribution of a manuscript.

In my experience, editors consistently value three qualities in a review:

• Thoughtful analysis of the manuscript’s ideas, methods, arguments, and conclusions;
• Clear, organized feedback that distinguishes major concerns from minor ones; and
• Timely completion of the review process.

Ultimately, a focused and well-structured review is often far more valuable than an exhaustive one. You do not need to identify every minor issue in order to provide meaningful feedback. Thoughtful, constructive, and clearly organized reviews give editors the information they need while also helping authors strengthen their work.

Developing a Reviewing Rhythm

Once you accept an invitation, it can be tempting to set the manuscript aside and plan to return to it later. Early in my reviewing experience, however, I discovered that delaying the review often made the task feel larger and more difficult than it actually was.

Experienced reviewers often begin the process relatively soon after accepting the invitation, even if they only complete an initial read-through. Beginning early helps preserve first impressions of the manuscript, makes deadlines easier to manage, and reduces the likelihood that unfinished reviews will accumulate.

Over time, I have developed a consistent reviewing rhythm that helps organize both my reading and my thinking. While every reviewer ultimately develops an individual workflow, many reviews follow several common stages:

1. The first read: gaining an overall understanding of the manuscript’s purpose, structure, and contribution.
2. The second read: examining methods, organization, interpretation, and overall coherence more carefully.
3. Drafting comments: organizing observations, identifying strengths and concerns, and developing feedback for the editor and author.
4. Final review of feedback: rereading comments to ensure they are clear, constructive, professional, and focused on the manuscript’s major issues.

Over time, developing a consistent workflow makes reviewing feel more manageable, efficient, and sustainable. Like many professional skills in nursing and scholarship, confidence and good judgment often develop gradually through practice and experience.

Conclusion

Learning to read like a reviewer takes time and practice. Strong reviewers learn to look beyond sentence-level details and focus on the manuscript’s larger purpose, contribution, clarity, and coherence. Over time, reviewers develop habits and workflows that make the process more thoughtful, efficient, and constructive.

Most importantly, effective peer review is not about “finding faults” in a manuscript. It is about helping editors make informed decisions and helping authors strengthen their scholarly work. Thoughtful reviewers contribute not only to individual manuscripts, but also to the quality and integrity of scholarly communication within nursing.

Author: Christina M. Nyirati

Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Christina M. Nyirati

Citation: Nyirati CM. Trail Stop 3: Reading like a reviewer. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2(3):1. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20382350