Publishing and reviewing are essential skills for academic success, according to Dr. Victor Darley-Usmar, whose presentation on how to review a paper in less than an hour underscored the importance of serving as a peer reviewer to a budding researcher’s career. The high attendance of nearly 50, including virtual participation via GoToMeeting, was likewise a reflection of keen interest in developing this skill.  

After providing an overview of the peer review process, Darley-Usmar noted the importance of understanding the journal’s goals before starting a review. The next step should be skimming an assigned paper to determine if a “quick reject” is appropriate. He explained that no statistics, blurred figures, insufficient work, and an inadequate standard of English are common reasons for rejecting a paper that “do not require an investment of your time to read it in depth because it lacks the information needed to review it.” 

If the paper is solid, then a reviewer should write the report while reading the paper. He said the report introduction should be roughly three sentences—“Interesting paper addressing xyz data is novel. The manuscript is clear and well-written. The following points should be addressed…”. Major points (no more than 5-6) might include needing an experiment; minor points included clarifications or corrections, such as additional facts about the topic, missing cites, and more details for experimental conditions. 

Darley-Usmar discussed the reasons a review could take longer and offered solutions, such as not understanding a topic (“comment on what you can and tell the editor why you cannot assess xyz”). More common, he said, is a reviewer burns up time trying to suggest the study he or she would have done (instead of reviewing what the authors submitted) or trying to fix a paper. “If you have more than six comments, the paper should probably be rejected,” he noted.

When reviewing revisions, Darley-Usmar said “It’s unfair and extremely uncollegial to bring in new requests at this point, although new data are fair game for new comments.” Otherwise, a 10-minute review should be enough to see if the authors’ responses were collegial and addressed all points appropriately. 

In conclusion, he urged participants to avoid several common mistakes if they want to be invited back by a journal editor: providing a decision with no comments or comments that do not support, using sarcastic or insulting language, sending extensive comments to the editor that are not shared with authors, ignoring ethical problems, and providing too many detailed comments. 

“You are not being asked to do a massive lit review,” he said, “so don’t turn a 1-hour task into a 3-day project.” Time management is a critical skill in academia, he noted, and by becoming a more efficient reviewer, “you will make a more effective contribution to the scientific community and learn more yourself.” 

For those who wish to learn more, Dr. Darley-Usmar’s presentation is available on the CCTS YouTube channel.