I have just been asked by a journal that has accepted a paper of mine if I would review a manuscript for them. The topic is in my area, so I am really keen to do it, but I haven't reviewed a manuscript before.
Having had a few papers reviewed, and had my fair share of unhelpful criticism, I am keen to keep the feedback positive, but other than making student essays, I haven't done anything like this before.
Does any one have any tips?

Hi Fm. I have just had a paper accepted this week for publication, and am in the process of reviewing an article for a different journal. I think after having papers reviewed yourself, and also you reviewing papers as part of your own research- it'll come 'naturally'.

I looked at the paper with critical (not cynical) eyes, and looked at the arguments made, was it strong enough, well referenced, was the method clearly described so I could follow the research again etc etc..

I always start off my comments with...' this was an interesting paper on x, and i agree with the authors that more research is required in this area, however......'

I give comments on the paper itself (track changes), then convert to pdf (as if still in word they might be able to ID you). Then i give a summary of my comments on a separate sheet (Pdf)...

It's good experience, and hopefully one day they'll ask us to be on the editorial board
8-)

Hi Fm,

I have reviewed one article for a journal, as such not an expert.

I wrote the feedback as follows:

1. I mentioned the areas that I felt were particularly good.

2. I mentioned the areas that I felt needed more work on because they were difficult to understand and or if there would be any errors in it. I made sure that I made specific suggestions regarding how these could be improved.

3. Finally I provided a sort of conclusion and provided advice regarding accepting the article or not.

Hey Fm, I'm just in the process of reviewing my first paper, although I have had a practice with a few that my supervisor has been doing, so I've got an idea about how to do it. Really unfortunately the one I've been sent is really poor and it's hard to find the positives except that the topic is interesting. But there are major methodological flaws which means that the only option is to reject it. It's hard rejecting a paper as I don't really feel qualified to make the decision- I am hardly an expert! But I have asked my sup to read over it and give me her opinion to make sure I'm not being too harsh (apparently I'm not- the paper is indeed appalling!!), though I will still do my best to find some positives. I think reviewing is just part of the learning process- could you ask your sup to have a quick look at it just to make sure you're not too far off the mark? Best, KB

I've done peer review. I've got some papers that give a step-by-step guide to the expert review process. I'd be happy to send them to you, if you PM me an e-mail address. I quite enjoyed the process, even though it was far removed from my area of expertise - and it was for a journal that originally rejected my own paper.

I gave a point-by-point critique of the paper, saying good and 'bad' things about it. I also made any referral to the authors as 'the authors' to make it as impersonal as possible. I summarised the evaluation by saying what I thought would be helpful amendments for readers of the paper and congratulated them on a very interesting piece of work (didn't really think it was that interesting in truth - probably sour grapes on my part).

Thanks for you help everybody! I have just had a read through, and happily, on first look it is a good paper, so there is lots of positive feedback that I can give.
As you Keenbeen, I will get my sup to have a look over it to be sure that I am not completely of the mark.
Thanks for the offer Wal, I'll PM you now.
Thanks again all.
F