Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer: A Writer’s Camp Learning Trail
Marie Gill, PhD, MSN, MS, RN
Writer’s Camp Counselor
Abstract
This articles outlines the essential skills for becoming an effective peer reviewer. It emphasizes the distinction between major and minor comments, advocating for organized, constructive feedback that prioritizes significant issues affecting a manuscript’s quality. By focusing on the severity and revisability of concerns, reviewers can facilitate meaningful revisions and improve publication readiness.
Every manuscript has flaws, but not all flaws are equal.
You accepted a review invitation for a manuscript that fits your expertise. Excellent! Now comes the harder part: deciding which problems truly matter and writing comments that help both the author and the editor. New reviewers often identify useful issues, but then blur the difference between major concerns and minor edits. The result is a review that feels busy but does not guide revision.
Strong peer reviews separate what must be fixed from what would simply make the manuscript better. You need to learn how to distinguish major from minor comments, write feedback authors can act on, avoid common reviewer mistakes, and give editors a clear sense of severity, revisability, scientific importance, and publication readiness. All of those topics will be covered in this Trail Stop.
When you write a review, it is helpful to focus on one core skill: sorting your comments by importance. When you can distinguish major from minor issues, you help authors understand what must change, and you help editors judge whether the manuscript is ready, revisable, or fundamentally flawed.
Major Versus Minor Issues
A major issue affects the manuscript’s quality, validity, logic, interpretation, or publishability. If the manuscript cannot move forward without the problem being addressed, treat it as major.1
Major comments usually require substantial revision. They may involve the research question, literature review, theoretical framework, methods, analysis, interpretation, organization, or fit with the journal. A major issue is not necessarily fatal, but it is consequential.
A minor issue is easier to fix and does not change the substance of the work. Minor comments often address grammar, formatting, wording, missing page numbers, unclear abbreviations, inconsistent references, or small points of clarification.1
A useful test is this: if fixing the issue could change the reader’s trust in the manuscript’s findings, argument, or contribution, it is probably major. If fixing it mostly improves polish, readability, or compliance with journal style, it is probably minor.
Examples of Major Comments
Major comments should name the problem, explain why it matters, and point the author toward a solution. In the literature review, for example, a major concern might be that key studies are missing and the knowledge gap is therefore not well established. In the methods section, a reviewer might identify an unclear sampling strategy, an inappropriate analysis, or a design that does not fit the research question. In the findings and discussion, a major concern might be that the conclusions go beyond what the results support.
Major comments can also address the manuscript’s organization. If the research question, results, and discussion do not align, or if the theoretical framework is named but never used, the problem affects more than polish. It affects the manuscript’s credibility and usefulness. These comments deserve priority in both the review to the author and the confidential comments to the editor.
Examples of Minor Comments
Minor comments should still be clear, but they should not distract from the major issues. A minor comment might ask the author to correct a misspelled term, define an abbreviation at first use, move a table closer to the paragraph where it is discussed, rephrase a confusing sentence, or format references according to journal style. These edits improve readability and presentation, but they do not usually change the study’s logic or conclusions.
Do not list every small typo unless language problems are widespread enough to interfere with comprehension. In that case, say so once and recommend careful proofreading or language editing.
How to Write Useful Reviewer Comments
Effective reviewer comments are specific, constructive, and actionable. They identify the issue, explain why it matters, and give the author a reasonable path forward.2
A useful comment has three parts: the problem, the consequence, and the next step. Instead of writing, “This needs work,” you might write, “The sampling procedure is unclear; please explain how participants were selected.” Instead of writing, “The discussion is weak,” you might write, “Compare the findings with prior studies and explain how the results extend or challenge existing knowledge.”
Tone matters, too. Be direct when the problem is serious, but keep the language professional. The author should be able to understand what you mean, why it matters, and what kind of revision would address the concern. Separating major from minor comments is part of that clarity.
Common Reviewer Mistakes
Most weak reviews fail in predictable ways. Some are too superficial: a few vague paragraphs that never address the manuscript’s main sections or priorities. Others are rushed, often because the reviewer waited too long and then submitted comments that are thin or scattered. If you cannot meet the deadline, contact the editor instead of sending an underdeveloped review.
Another common mistake is copyediting instead of reviewing. Clarity matters, but peer review is not line editing. Focus first on content, logic, methods, interpretation, and contribution. Related to this is the problem of burying major concerns among minor grammar comments. If the manuscript has a serious flaw, put that issue where the author and editor can see it.
Finally, weak reviews often ignore journal guidance or skip required elements. Reviewer instructions and author guidelines tell you what the journal values. Depending on the manuscript type, you may need to comment on the question, design, sample, measures, analysis, ethics, findings, limitations, and fit with the journal. A simple structure, with major and minor comments separated, prevents many of these problems.
Helping Editors Prioritize Concerns
Editors rely on reviewers not only to identify problems, but also to judge how serious and fixable those problems are. Your confidential comments to the editor should therefore address four questions: severity, revisability, scientific importance, and publication readiness.3,4
Severity
Severity asks how much the issue affects the manuscript’s quality or conclusions. A missing control group, mismatched analysis, unsupported conclusion, or unclear research question is more severe than a reference-formatting problem. Label severe issues plainly so the editor knows what must be addressed.
Revisability
Revisability asks whether the problem can realistically be fixed. Some major issues can be corrected through reanalysis, restructuring, clearer reporting, or a stronger discussion. Others may require new data or a different study design. Tell the editor which kind of problem you see.
Scientific Importance
Scientific importance asks whether the manuscript contributes something meaningful to the field. Consider whether the work addresses a relevant gap, offers useful findings, or advances practice, policy, education, theory, or future research.
Publication Readiness
Publication readiness asks whether the manuscript is acceptable now, likely acceptable after revision, or not suitable for the journal. Your recommendation should follow from the problems you identified. If you recommend major revision, explain what must change. If you recommend rejection, distinguish between a fixable manuscript that needs more work and a manuscript with flaws that cannot be repaired in revision.5
A Practical Review Structure
A clear structure keeps your comments focused. One simple format is:
- Opening summary: One or two sentences stating what the manuscript is about and its main contribution.
- Major comments: Numbered concerns that affect validity, interpretation, organization, contribution, or publishability. List major comments first, even if there are only one or two.
- Minor comments: Numbered edits that improve clarity, accuracy, formatting, or readability.
- Confidential note to the editor: Brief assessment of severity, revisability, scientific importance, and publication readiness.
- This structure prevents the review from becoming a long, undifferentiated list. Authors should immediately understand which issues affect publication and which simply improve the manuscript. This structure also helps authors see what to fix first.
Conclusion
Becoming a strong reviewer requires more than spotting problems. You need to rank them. Major comments tell authors what must change for the manuscript to be credible and publishable. Minor comments help polish the work without distracting from the central issues. When your comments are specific, organized, and proportionate, you make revision easier for authors and decision-making easier for editors.
Stay Calm and Review On!
References
- Clark PC, Spratling R, Aycock DM, Marcus J. The real secret to getting published: responding to reviewers. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. 2023;37(5):570-574. doi:10.1016/j.pedh.2023.06.001
- Chicca J, Shellenbarger T. Revising it right: five steps to help you get your work published. Nurse Author & Editor. 2020;30:1-9. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4910.2020.tb00003.x
- Alspach G. What journal editors would like from reviewers. Critical Care Nurse. 1994;14(6):13-16. doi:10.4037/ccn1993.14.6.13
- Committee on Publication Ethics. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Accessed July 9, 2026. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
- Song E, Ang L, Park JY, et al. A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251440
- Wiley. Working with editors. Accessed July 9, 2026. https://authors.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/work-with-editors.html
Author: Marie Gill
Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll
Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Marie Gill. CC-BY-ND 4.0
Citation: Gill M. Trail Stop 6: Distinguishing major and minor comments. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2026; 2(3):6. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21284249