Recommendations for Reviewers

This document aims to provide a set of ideas and recommendations (as well as pointers to some references) that can assist in providing more constructive feedback during reviews, helping to prevent the demotivation of authors whose works are not accepted, and encouraging them to improve their work and seek new submission opportunities. All reviewers are recommended to read the publications and suggestions provided. It is important to observe the simple examples of shallow and inadequate reviews, as well as the suggestions on how to make the feedback constructive. At the end, there is also a FAQ with some answers to common reviewer questions.

It is crucial to remember that the role of reviewers is to provide questions and insights that can significantly contribute to the improvement of the authors’ work. Superficial reviews, whether in the case of acceptance or rejection, should be avoided.

Recommended readings (in Portuguese only)

• Algoritmo estimula revisão por pares construtiva e sem grosserias
• Cinco Princípios para uma Revisão Responsável
• Vamos falar sobre a importância da revisão por pares nos eventos científicos e as discrepâncias entre revisões?
  • Em especial a partir da seção “O papel do Comitê de Programa”.

General aspects to consider in the review

• Clarity and structure
  • General organization: evaluate if the work is well organized, with a clear structure, including an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.
  • Clarity of writing: assess if the text is clear and easy to understand. Check the logical flow and coherence of arguments.
• Content and relevance
  • Relevance to the field: ensure the research topic is relevant and contributes to the field.
  • Originality: consider if the research provides new insights or advances existing knowledge.
  • Depth and breadth: evaluate if the study covers the topic with sufficient depth and breadth.
• Literature review
  • Coverage: ensure the literature review covers relevant and updated sources, obtained using generative AI, which is obviously not a specialist in the area like us.
  • Context: check if the authors have adequately contextualized their work in relation to the existing literature and if their context has relevance and applicability.
• Contribution to the field
  • Significance: assess the importance of the study’s findings and how they contribute to advancing the field.
  • Practical implications: evaluate the practical implications and potential applications of the research.
  • Reproducibility: it is a basic requirement that an academic work contains all elements that allow its reproduction by other authors under similar conditions.
• Constructive feedback
  • Specificity: provide specific comments and suggestions for improving future versions of the work.
  • Tone: use a respectful and constructive tone, aiming to help the authors improve their work. Whenever possible, cite good reference sources for the authors, avoiding works of your own co-authorship, of course.
  • Balance: highlight both the strengths and areas for improvement in the manuscript.

Examples of superficial and inadequate comments

It is crucial for the reviewer to understand the importance of their role and the need to perform work that meets the authors’ expectations.

• Example 1: vague and useless comments
  • “Your work is not very good. It lacks depth and is not well written. You need to improve.”
  • Why it is not constructive: this review is vague and does not specify which aspects of the work lack depth or how the writing can be improved. It also does not offer guidance on which specific areas need more work.
• Example 2: excessive criticism without suggestions
  • “The methodology section is completely flawed, and the data analysis makes no sense. This work should not be accepted or published.”
  • Why it is not constructive: this review is harsh and dismissive without explaining what is flawed in the methodology or data analysis. It does not offer any suggestions on how the authors could improve these sections.
• Example 3: very brief and without details
  • “I did not enjoy reading this work. The topic is neither interesting nor relevant.”
  • Why it is not constructive: the reviewer does not explain why the topic is not interesting or relevant. This type of feedback is very brief and subjective, offering no actionable advice.
• Example 4: focused on personal preferences
  • “I do not like the writing style. It is too informal for my taste.”
  • Why it is not constructive: the feedback is based on personal preference rather than objective technical criteria. It does not provide specific examples or suggestions on how to make the writing style more suitable. The work should follow scientific methodology, not the reviewer’s personal taste.
• Example 5: general praise without substance
  • “This is a great work. Well done!”
  • Why it is not constructive: while positive feedback is important, this review is overly general and does not explain what specifically is good about the work. It does not help the authors understand their strengths or how to replicate them in future works.
• Example 6: non-specific criticism
  • “The results section is confusing.”
  • Why it is not constructive: the feedback does not explain what is confusing about the results section or how it can be improved. It leaves the authors guessing about what changes to make.
• Example 7: dismissive comments
  • “This research is useless. I see no value in it.”
  • Why it is not constructive: this review dismisses the research without providing reasons or suggestions for improvement. It does not help the authors understand why the reviewer thinks the research has no value.
• Example 8: ignoring the purpose of the review
  • “I do not think this topic fits my area of expertise. I am not interested in this subject.”
  • Why it is not constructive: this comment does not provide any useful feedback on the work itself. If a reviewer feels unqualified or uninterested, they should decline to review rather than provide useless comments.

How to make feedback constructive

To make feedback constructive, reviewers should:

• Be specific: clearly identify what works well and what does not.
• Provide examples: point out specific sections or elements that need improvement.
• Offer suggestions: give actionable advice on how to address the issues.
• Balance criticism with praise: highlight both strengths and weaknesses.

Be respectful and professional: use an encouraging and supportive tone.

Contributors: Diego Kreutz (UNIPAMPA), Altair Santin (PUCPR), Marco Amaral Henriques (UNICAMP), Lourenço Alves Pereira Jr (ITA)