Trail Stop 4: Editors’ Perspectives on Peer Review

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

Roger Watson, BSc PhD FRCP Edin FAAN

Mark Hayter, RN, BA (Hons), M.Med. Sci, PhD

Writer’s Camp Counselors

---

Knowing what an editor wants will help you write better reviews.

---

Peer review is now considered an essential aspect of academic publishing,¹ albeit that it has a shorter history than many assume, having only become widespread practice in academic publishing since the late 1960s. While the system is far from perfect and is often the subject of comment and even investigation,² most editors would now consider it indispensable. Moreover, Clarivate® which operates the gold standard system for tracking citations and calculating the annual impact factor of journals, insists that to be included in their lists that the “Published content must reflect adequate and effective peer review and/or editorial oversight.”³ Most academic journals now consider that at least two independent reviewers are the required minimum for manuscripts that are sent out for review.⁴

Screening Manuscripts

Most journals in nursing are reporting a steady increase in submissions, and it is important that editors do not overwhelm their reviewers by flooding their inboxes with manuscripts for review. Therefore, to mitigate that and to ensure that only the best manuscripts are sent out for review—those most likely to survive the review process—it is essential that receiving editors consider all submissions and evaluate their suitability for review. Editors must not rely on reviewers to carry this work out for them. Reviewers should be sent only those manuscripts that clearly fit the criteria (aims and scope) of the journal, which include all the necessary elements (for example, EQUATOR⁵ checklists and flowcharts) and which are likely to make some contribution to the field of study.  

Receiving editors should also ensure that the manuscript is readable, has no fatal methodological flaws, as far as can be told at first glance, and that there are no COPE⁶ red flags such as a high level of similarity to previously published material. Where human participants are involved, the process for ethical permission should be clearly indicated.

The Editor’s Expectations

Editors depend heavily on reviewers listed in journal databases to sustain the peer review process. Reviewers who agree to be included in these databases typically identify their areas of expertise and indicate periods when they are unavailable. Editors use this information carefully and generally try not to overwhelm individual reviewers with excessive requests.

Because reviewers in these databases form the backbone of the peer review system, editors reasonably expect them to undertake a fair number of reviews within their area of expertise. Repeated refusals to review manuscripts can delay editorial decisions and slow the publication process.

At the most basic level, editors expect reviewers who accept an invitation to complete the review and return it within the requested timeframe. Timely completion is essential to maintaining an efficient editorial workflow.

Editors also expect reviews to provide useful guidance for editorial decision-making. While rapid turnaround is always appreciated, editors value reviews that help them determine whether a manuscript should be rejected, revised, or accepted. Even when reviews are brief, thoughtful comments about the manuscript’s quality, contribution, and major concerns can assist editors in reaching a decision.

There is an important distinction between the role of the reviewer and the editor which is that reviewers advise and editors decide. To help the editor to arrive at a decision about a manuscript, the editor wants some indication from the reviewer(s) of whether the manuscript is this worth publishing and does the study reported advance knowledge? In support of that decision, the editor needs to know, for example, is the methodology appropriate, are the conclusions justified by the data and is anything missing that needs to be added to the paper?

Elements of a Quality Review

Editors look for evidence that the reviewer has properly engaged with the paper—this is often seen through a detailed review rather than cursory, broad comments. Reviewers should show how they understand the methods and be clear about any issues with the methodology. A red flag is when reviewers clearly misunderstand the methodology, for example, commenting on the need for a representative sample in a qualitative study. Good reviewers are able to distinguish between issues that are capable of revision versus fatal flaws in the design of the study. The format of the review can also be a factor. Good reviews tend to be free from long narratives and use clear bullet points or distinct points they have picked up from the paper; this clarity is very useful for authors when being asked to revise according to reviewers’ comments. It is also important that reviewers remain constructive in their reviews. Disparaging comments are unnecessary and can seriously impact the confidence of some new authors. Reviewers should not let their personal beliefs and ideas influence the decision but remain focused on the rigor of the work.

High quality reviews avoid generalizations such as “needs improvement” and provide specific detail on what the improvements are. It is also important that reviewers do not stray from critiquing the actual paper into suggesting an entirely different project. Reviewers should also ensure their reviews match with their recommendations, for example, not suggesting minor revisions to accompany a list of significant matters to be addressed by the author.

It seems obvious, but reviews should be undertaken by the reviewer. Using junior colleagues or even doctoral students to complete reviews is inappropriate and undermines reviewer accountability. Reviews should not be generated using artificial intelligence systems but be the original perspectives of the reviewers.

Managing Conflicting Reviews

On many occasions there may be conflicting opinions from reviewers. This can be managed in several ways. First, the editor becomes an additional “reviewer” and uses that judgement to come to a decision. If both reviews are high quality and detailed—despite being contrasting—an additional peer review may be helpful. It is very important that the editor also engages with the paper in detail as it is entirely possible that reviewers miss significant problems or fatal flaws in manuscripts. Editors use their overall judgement on a paper taking the reviews in to consideration rather than simply taking the decision directly from the reviewer’s feedback.

Peer Review: A Subjective Process

Peer review is the widely accepted “gold standard” for quality assurance in academic publishing. However, it is not a perfect system. Editors and reviewers are human and can make mistakes, be very busy, have opinions, and be affected by various considerations. The multiple review approach can minimize this to some extent; however, it remains the case that reviews can be poor quality and good journals have processes by which editors can rate the quality of a review and, in some cases, remove the reviewer from the journal database of reviewers. It is also important to understand that reviewers and editors may well have different perspectives on manuscripts. Reviewers are singly focused on quality and rigor, with some input on originality. Editors, whilst also focused on those issues, will also be considering the impact of a paper, if something similar has been published recently, its likelihood of being cited, and also its international appeal or transferable messages.

Conclusion

Peer review—although having limitations—is the bedrock of academic publishing. Obtaining thorough reviews is a central part of the editing role. Peer review is also part of global academic citizenship, albeit an unpaid role, carried out by academics in the hope that others will do the same for their papers. As editors it is important that we support and inform reviewers of the expectations of the journal but also be respectful of the time they are investing in undertaking a review.

References

1. Ali P, Watson R. Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open 2016;3:193-202.
2. House of Commons. Peer review in scientific publications. London, England: The Stationery Office Limited; 2011.
3. Clarivate. Journal evaluation process and selection criteria. Accessed May 15, 2026.
4. Taylor & Francis. An editor’s guide to the peer review process. Accessed May 15, 2026.
5. EQUATOR Network. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. Accessed May 15, 2026.
6. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Accessed May 15, 2026.

Authors: Roger Watson and Mark Hayter

Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp, Roger Watson, and Mark Hayter. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Watson R, Hayter M. Trail Stop #4: Editors’ perspectives on peer review. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2026; 2(3):3. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20388194