One of my grad students recently got invited to write their first article review for a journal. They asked for my advice on how to approach the whole process, so I thought it might be helpful to share some thoughts here:
https://gradschool.substack.com/p/how-to-write-a-review?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf
1. Editors may not know you're interested. There isn't a database out there with scholars' names and contact info and expertise. So if you want to start reviewing/review more, ask your advisor to recommend you or contact editors to volunteer.
2. You can review a paper even if it's not a perfect fit for your expertise. It's actually helpful for editors to get feedback from people who might read/cite /teach a manuscript, even if they don't do that kind of work.
3. Start by reading key sections to get a sense of whether the manuscript fits the journal scope/guidelines and whether it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field. If not, your review can be short (though skim the whole thing first to confirm).
4. Read strategically, answering key questions like: Is there a clear justification? Does the author engage with relevant research? Do the data and methods align with the goals? Does the argument flow logically from the findings?
5. Write a review you'd want to read. Which means showing the author how to improve.
--Identify the problem (X isn't clear)
--Explain why it's a problem (Readers might think you mean)
--Offer possible solutions (You might say)
6. If you give the author a clear path forward, it's less likely the manuscript will get resubmitted with the same problems. And it's more likely the author will learn from the process for the next article they submit. Which saves everyone time in the end.
Jessica. 🦕
Jess Calarco
Marilie C. Odding