Trail Stop 12: Writing the Recommendation

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

Annie J. Rohan, PhD, RN, FAANP, FAAN

Writer’s Camp Counselor

---

Your final written review pulls everything together.

---

For many reviewers, especially those who are newer to the role, writing the recommendation may be the most uncomfortable part of the review. What if you are too critical? What if you overlook an important problem? What if another reviewer reaches a completely different conclusion? Selecting a recommendation—accept, revise, or reject—can feel more consequential than writing the comments themselves.

Your recommendation matters, but it is not the final decision. It is professional advice provided to the editor. The editor will consider your assessment alongside the manuscript, the comments of other reviewers, journal priorities, ethical considerations, and their own editorial judgment.

Your task is not to predict exactly what the editor will decide. Your task is to make your reasoning clear.

Your Recommendation Is Advice to the Editor

Reviewers sometimes feel pressure to “get the decision right.” In reality, reviewers provide advice. Editors make decisions. This distinction is central to understanding your role.

The editor will consider your comments and recommendation alongside other factors, including the assessments of other reviewers, each reviewer’s area of expertise, the manuscript’s fit for the journal, journal priorities and readership, ethical or publication concerns, and the editor’s own reading and judgment.

The editor may also have information that is not available to you. A similar manuscript may have recently been accepted, for example, or the editor may identify strengths or concerns that none of the reviewers mentioned.

Editorial decisions are not determined by simply counting reviewer votes. Two recommendations for revision do not automatically produce a revision decision, and one recommendation for rejection does not automatically end consideration of the manuscript.

Editors evaluate the reasoning behind each recommendation. A detailed review that clearly explains one serious, but fixable concern may be more useful than a recommendation of “reject” supported by only a few vague sentences.

Think of your recommendation as an answer to this question:

Based on my expertise and review of this manuscript, what do I believe should happen next, and why?

Your reasoning should also help answer the editor’s larger question: Will this manuscript contribute something accurate, important, and useful to the journal’s readers? In practical terms, the manuscript should pass the “So What” test. Will readers learn something meaningful? Could the work influence knowledge, practice, education, policy, or future scholarship?

Accept, Revise, or Reject

Most journals use some variation of three primary recommendations: accept, revise, or reject. The exact wording and number of options vary. You may encounter categories such as minor revision, major revision, revise and resubmit, reject with an invitation to resubmit, or transfer to another journal. Read the journal’s descriptions carefully. Categories that sound similar may have different meanings at different journals.

Regardless of the categories used, your recommendation should address four considerations:

• The manuscript’s relevance to the journal and its readers;
• The importance, accuracy, and usefulness of its contribution;
• The seriousness of its limitations; and
• Whether those limitations can realistically be addressed through revision.

How these considerations are applied will depend on the manuscript type. A research report should be judged on the appropriateness and rigor of its design, sample, measures, analysis, and conclusions, while other manuscripts require criteria suited to their purpose.

Recommendation to Accept

An immediate recommendation of acceptance is relatively rare. Even strong manuscripts usually benefit from some revision.

An accept or accept-with-minor-revisions recommendation may be appropriate when the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution, the work is rigorous and appropriate for the manuscript type, the conclusions are supported, the manuscript is well aligned with the journal, and no substantive concerns remain.

Do not recommend acceptance simply because the topic is important or because you agree with the authors. Conversely, do not avoid recommending acceptance because you believe a reviewer must always identify a problem. Your recommendation should reflect the manuscript’s publication readiness, not the general truth that all writing can be improved.

Before selecting accept, reread your major comments. If you have identified problems involving the methods, conceptual foundation, analysis, interpretation, or overall contribution, acceptance is probably not aligned with your review.

Recommendation to Revise

Revision is the most common recommendation.

A recommendation for revision communicates two judgments:

1. The manuscript has enough value and potential to remain under consideration.
2. The concerns you identified can realistically be addressed.

The second judgment is especially important.

Many problems are serious but correctable. Authors may be able to clarify sampling procedures, explain an analytic decision, reorganize the discussion, more fully integrate a theoretical framework, provide missing information, temper conclusions, or better acknowledge limitations.

Other problems cannot be fixed through revision because the required information or evidence does not exist. Authors cannot retrospectively collect data that were never gathered, add a comparison group that was not included, or replace the original design with a fundamentally different one.

When considering revision, ask:

Can the authors address the major concerns using the work they have already completed?

If the answer is yes, revision may be appropriate.

A minor revision generally indicates that the manuscript is fundamentally sound. The changes needed may improve clarity, completeness, organization, reporting, interpretation, or language, but they do not alter the central design, argument, or contribution.

A major revision indicates that substantial work is required before the manuscript can be reconsidered. The concerns may involve methods, analysis, theoretical integration, organization, interpretation, or presentation of the findings. The manuscript still has potential, but the authors will need to make meaningful changes.

When recommending major revision, delineate what must change. Avoid saying only that the paper “needs substantial work.” Tell the editor and authors where the most important problems are and why they matter.

And avoid requiring authors to transform the manuscript into the study or paper you would have written. Reviewers should evaluate and improve the submitted work, not redesign it according to their own preferences.

Recommendation to Reject

Recommending rejection can feel uncomfortable. Most reviewers recognize how much work authors invest in a manuscript and do not want to discourage colleagues.

However, rejection is a necessary part of scholarly publishing. It does not mean that the authors are incapable, the topic is unimportant, or the work has no value. It means that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form and cannot reasonably become suitable through the journal’s revision process.

Rejection may be appropriate when:

• The manuscript is outside the journal’s scope;
• The manuscript does not make a sufficient contribution;
• The research question and design are fundamentally misaligned;
• The study methodology is flawed rather than merely limited;
• Essential data were not collected;
• The conclusions cannot be supported by the analysis;
• Major ethical or publication concerns are present; or
• The necessary changes would require a different study or fundamentally different paper.

The question is not simply whether the manuscript has serious problems. Some serious problems can be corrected. The more important question is whether the problems are editorially revisable.

A poorly organized discussion may require major revision but still be fixable. A beautifully written study that uses a design incapable of answering its stated research question may not be.

When recommending rejection, explain the central reason clearly. Do not bury the basis for rejection beneath a long list of minor comments. Constructive feedback remains appropriate. Authors may use your comments to strengthen the manuscript for another journal or guide future work. However, you do not need to provide an exhaustive revision plan for a manuscript that you believe cannot be made publishable through revision.

Align Your Comments and Recommendation

One of the most common problems editors encounter is misalignment between reviewer comments and the selected recommendation.

A reviewer may recommend rejection but provide mostly minor comments. Another may recommend acceptance while identifying major methodological concerns. A third may recommend revision without clearly explaining what needs to be revised.

Editors rely on the relationship between your comments and recommendation to understand your overall judgment. Before submitting your review, look for a clear connection among three elements:

Your concerns → Your written comments → Your recommendation

If you recommend rejection, the substantive concerns supporting that judgment should be clearly explained. If you recommend major revision, your review should make clear which issues are major and what would need to change. If you recommend minor revision, your comments should not describe problems that undermine the credibility of the work. If you recommend acceptance, any remaining concerns should truly be limited.

To check alignment, ask:

• Does my recommendation match the seriousness of my concerns?
• Have I explained the issues that support my recommendation?
• Have I distinguished fixable problems from fatal ones?
• Would the editor understand how I reached this conclusion?
• Would the authors understand what must change?

A brief alignment check at the end of the review can prevent considerable confusion.

Explain Your Reasoning Clearly

Editors often find the reasoning behind a recommendation more helpful than the recommendation itself. A checked box provides limited information. The editor needs to know which concerns are decisive, which are correctable, and which suggestions are optional.

Many review systems provide separate spaces for comments to the authors and confidential comments to the editor. Comments to the authors should identify strengths, explain concerns, and provide constructive guidance. Confidential comments to the editor should offer a brief synthesis of your overall assessment.

Before submitting the review, verify which fields the authors will see. Do not announce acceptance or rejection in comments to the authors when the journal reserves that judgment for the editor.

A useful confidential comment usually includes:

• The manuscript’s potential contribution;
• The most important concern or concerns;
• Whether those concerns are realistically revisable; and
• The recommendation.

For example:

This manuscript addresses a clinically important and underexplored topic that is relevant to the journal’s readership. However, the sampling procedures and analytic approach are not described in enough detail to evaluate the credibility of the findings. These concerns appear addressable through substantial clarification and possibly reanalysis. I recommend major revision.

When you are uncertain, say so. You may be confident in your assessment of the clinical content but less certain about the statistical analysis. You may believe the paper could become publishable but be unsure whether its contribution is sufficiently novel for the journal.

Uncertainty does not mean that you have failed as a reviewer.

An excellent reviewer also recognizes the limits of the review they were asked to provide. You do not need to evaluate every aspect of every manuscript, particularly when an issue falls outside your expertise or the scope of your assigned review. Be clear with the editor about what you assessed and where additional expertise may be needed. We will return to this idea in Trail Stop 14: Not Every Reviewer Has to Review Everything. For now, here’s some useful language to use when a concern falls outside your expertise. For example:

The clinical content appears strong and relevant. However, I do not have sufficient statistical expertise to determine whether the analytic approach is appropriate. The editor may wish to obtain an additional statistical review.

Such statements help editors determine how to weigh your assessment. They do not weaken your review. Recognizing the limits of your expertise is part of responsible peer review. A transparent explanation of uncertainty is more useful than a confident recommendation that is not supported by your comments.

And remember: be collegial, but be clear. Kindness does not require vagueness. Authors need to understand the seriousness of concerns that affect the credibility or publication potential of their work.

Before You Submit

The recommendation is the point at which you pull the entire review together.

Before selecting “Submit Review,” ask yourself:

• Did I evaluate the manuscript that was submitted rather than the manuscript I would have written?
• Is my recommendation based on quality, rigor, contribution, clarity, and journal fit?
• Have I distinguished serious concerns from preferences and minor edits?
• Have I explained whether the major concerns are revisable?
• Do my comments to the authors support my recommendation?
• Have I clearly communicated my reasoning to the editor?
• Is my language fair, professional, and collegial?

Your recommendation does not need to be identical to the editor’s eventual decision. Editors understand that thoughtful reviewers may reach different conclusions. A different editorial decision does not diminish the value of a thoughtful review; editors weigh reviewer assessments alongside journal priorities, recently published content, timeliness, and other editorial considerations.

What matters is that the recommendation is grounded in the manuscript, supported by the comments, and explained clearly.

Conclusion

Stay calm and review on!

Remember: your recommendation is advice to the editor, not the final decision. Thoughtful recommendations—grounded in clear reasoning and communicated without mixed messages—are a hallmark of an excellent reviewer.

Author: Annie J. Rohan

Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Annie J. Rohan. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Rohan AJ. Trail Stop 12: Writing the recommendation. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2(3):12. doi:10.5281/zenodo.22016067