sample article review comments

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

Product Review of 2024 Chevrolet Traverse

Product review of 2024 mercedes-amg glc-class, product review of 2026 fisker pear, product review of 2025 fisker alaska, product review of 2026 fisker rōnin, product review of 2027 toyota corolla pickup, product review of 2025 alfa romeo 33 stradale, product review of 2024 ram 1500 trx, product review of 2026 honda prelude, product review of 2025 ram 1500 ramcharger hybrid, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

12 Ways to Grow Grass

How to Manage Family Finances

How to Install Shiplap: 14 Steps

How to Build a PVC Hoophouse

How to Grey Wash Wood: 15 Steps

3 Ways to Decorate Your Converse Shoes

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

The Five Most Powerful Lessons I Learned During My PhD

8th August 2024 8th August 2024

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024

How to Master Data Management in Research

25th April 2024 4th August 2024

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

• Peer Review System
• Production Service
• OA Publishing Platform
• Law Review System
• Why Scholastica?
• Customer Stories
• eBooks, Guides & More
• Schedule a demo
• Law Reviews
• Innovations In Academia
• New Features

Subscribe to receive posts by email

• Legal Scholarship
• Peer Review/Publishing
• I agree to the data use terms outlined in Scholastica's Privacy Policy Must agree to privacy policy.

How to Write Constructive Peer Review Comments: Tips every journal should give referees

Like the art of tightrope walking, writing helpful peer review comments requires honing the ability to traverse many fine lines.

Referees have to strike a balance between being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague, too conclusive or too open-ended — and the list goes on. Regardless of the stage of a scholar’s career, learning how to write consistently constructive peer review comments takes time and practice.

Most scholars embark on peer review with little to no formal training. So a bit of guidance from journals before taking on assignments is often welcome and can make a big difference in review quality. In this blog post, we’re rounding up 7 tips journals can give referees to help them conduct solid peer reviews and deliver feedback effectively.

You can incorporate these tips into your journal reviewer guidelines and any training materials you prepare, or feel free to link reviewers straight to this blog post!

Take steps to avoid decision fatigue

Did you know that some sources suggest adults make upwards of 35,000 decisions per day ? Hard to believe, right?!

Whether that stat is indeed the norm, there’s no question that we humans make MANY choices on the regular, from what to wear and what route to take to work to avoid construction to which emails to respond to first and how to go about that really tricky research project in the midst of tackling usual tasks, meetings — and, well, everything else. And that’s all likely before 10 AM!

In his blog post “ How to Peer Review ,” Dr. Matthew Might, Professor in the Department of Medicine and Director of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explained that over time the compounding mental strain of so much deliberation can result in a phenomenon known as decision fatigue . Decision fatigue is a deterioration in decision-making quality, which for busy peer reviewers can lead to writing less than articulate comments at best and missing critical points at worst.

In order to avoid decision fatigue, Might said scholars should try to work on peer reviews early in the day before they become bogged down with other matters. Additionally, he advises referees to work on no more than one review at a time when possible, or within one sitting at least, and to avoid reviewing when they feel tired or hungry. Taking steps to prevent decision fatigue can help scholars produce higher quality comments and, ultimately, write reviews faster because they’ll be working on them at times when they’re likely to be more focused and productive.

Of course, referees won’t always be able to follow every one of the above recommendations all of the time, nor will journal editors know if they have. But, it’s worth it for editors to remind reviewers to take decision fatigue into account before accepting and starting assignments.

Be cognizant of conscious and unconscious biases

Another decision-making factor that can cloud peer reviewers’ judgment that all editors should be hyper-attuned to is conscious and unconscious biases. Journal ethical guidelines are, of course, the first line of defense for preventing explicit biases. Every journal should have conflict of interest policies on when and how to disclose potential competing interests (e.g., financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships) that could influence reviewers’ (as well as editors’ and authors’) level of objectivity in the publication process. The Committee on Publication Ethics offers many helpful guides for developing conflict of interest / competing interest statements, and medical journals can find a “summary of key elements for peer-reviewed medical journal’s conflict of interest policies” from The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) here .

But what about unconscious biases that could have potentially insidious impacts on peer reviews?

Journals can help curb implicit bias by following double-anonymized peer review processes. Though, as the editors of Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology acknowledged in an announcement about their decision to move to double-anonymized peer review, even when all parties’ identities are concealed “unintentional exposure of author or institution identity is sometimes unavoidable, such as in small, specialized fields or subsequent to early sharing of data at conferences.”

Truly tackling unconscious biases requires getting to their roots, starting with acknowledging that they exist. Journals should remind reviewers to be cognizant of the fact that everyone harbors implicit biases that could impact their decision-making, as IOPScience does here and Cambridge University Press does here and provide tips for spotting and addressing biases. IOP advises reviewers to “focus on facts rather than feelings, slow down your decision making, and consider and reconsider the reasons for your conclusions.” And CUP reminds referees that “rooting your review in evidence from the paper or proposal is crucial in avoiding bias.”

Journals can also offer unconscious bias prevention training or direct referees to available resources such as this recorded Peer Reviewer Unconscious Bias webinar from the American Heart Association.

Null or negative results aren’t a basis for rejection

Speaking of forms of bias that can affect the peer review process, “positive results bias” — or the tendency to want to accept and publish positive results rather than null or negative results — is a common one. In a Royal Society blog post on what makes a good peer review, Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Dr. Rebecca Sear, spoke to how positive results bias can throw a wrench in peer review. Speaking from the perspective of an author, editor, and reviewer, Sear said, “at worst, this distorts science by keeping valuable research out of the literature entirely. It also creates inefficiencies in the system when publishable research has to be submitted to multiple journals before publication, burdening several reviewers and editors with the costs of evaluating the same research. A further problem is that the anonymity typically given to peer reviewers can result in unprofessional behavior being unleashed on authors.”

Journals can help prevent positive results bias by clearly stating that recommendations regarding manuscript decisions should be made on the basis of the quality of the research question, methodology, and perceived accuracy (rather than positivity) of the findings. Remind reviewers (and editors) that null and negative results can also provide valuable and even novel contributions to the literature.

List the negatives and the positives

When it comes time to write peer review comments, some scholars may intentionally or not lean heavily towards giving criticism rather than praise. Of course, peer reviews need to be rigorous, and that requires a critical eye, but it’s important for reviewers to let authors know what they’re doing right also. Otherwise, the author may lose sight of the working parts of their submission and could end up actually making it worse in revisions.

Journals should remind reviewers that their goal is to help authors identify what they are doing correctly as well as where to improve . Reviews shouldn’t be so negative that the author ends up pulling apart their entire manuscript. Additionally, it’s worth reminding reviewers to keep snarky comments to themselves. As Dr. Might noted in his blog, the presence of sarcasm in peer review may nullify any useful feedback provided in the eyes of the author.

Give concrete examples and advice (within scope!)

No author likes hearing that an area of their paper “needs work” without getting context as to why. It’s essential to remind reviewers to back up their comments and opinions with concrete examples and suggestions for improvement and ensure that any recommendations they’re making are within the scope of the journal requirements and research subject matter in question.

Remind reviewers that if they make suggestions for authors to provide additional references, data points, or experiments, they should be within scope and something the reviewer can confirm they would be able (and willing) to do themselves if in the author’s position.

One of the best ways to help train reviewers on how to give constructive feedback is to provide them with real-world examples. These “ Peer Review Examples “ from F1000 are a great starting point.

Another way editors can help reviewers give more concrete commentary is by advising them to log their reactions and responses to a paper as they read it. This can help reviewers avoid making blanket criticisms about an entire work that are, in fact, only applicable to some sections. It may also encourage reviewers to recognize and point out more positives!

Providing reviewers with detailed feedback forms and manuscript assessment checklists is another surefire way to help them stay on track.

Don’t be afraid to seek support

Journals should also remind prospective reviewers that it’s OK to ask for support when working on peer reviews. For example, an early-career researcher might want to seek a mentor to co-author their first review with them or provide general guidance on how to determine whether an experiment was conducted in the best manner possible (keeping manuscript information confidential, of course).

To help new referees get their footing, journals can assist them in identifying mentorship opportunities where applicable and offer peer reviewer training or links to external resources. For example, Taylor & Francis has an “ Excellence in Peer Review “ course, and Sense About Science has a “ Peer Review Nuts and Bolts “ guide.

For journals dealing with specialized subject matter, it’s also critical to be prepared to bring in expert opinions when needed. Editors should let reviewers know not to hesitate to suggest bringing in an expert if they feel it’s necessary.

Follow the Golden Rule

Finally, perhaps the best piece of advice journals can give reviewers is to follow the Golden Rule. You know it, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In his “How to peer review” guide, Dr. Matthew Might provided a clear barometer for referees to determine if they’ve prepared a thorough and fair review. “Once you’ve completed your review, ask yourself if you would be satisfied with the quality had you received the same for your own work,” he said. “If the answer is no, revise.”

Related Posts

New search optimizations for journals hosted via Scholastica

Researchers are more likely to visit and frequent journal websites that provide relevant search results fast. At Scholastica, we get that, and it's why we're continually introducing improvements to optimize the Scholastica Open Access Journal Publishing Platform for web browsers and on-site search. Learn about the latest search features in this blog post.

Submission form customization without added complexity or costs?: Yes, it's possible.

At Scholastica, we don't think peer review system configuration should have to equal complexity or added costs. Here's how we're making submission form customization easier for editors — no need to wade through multi-page manuals or pay for bespoke development work.

3 Ways Academic Journals Can Work with Grad Students

Most journals are familiar with the scenario of struggling to meet production deadlines due to spread-thin editor schedules or a shortage of available peer reviewers. Here are 3 ways grad students may be able to help.

Why Scholastica is taking a different approach to single-source production: Interview with CTO Cory Schires

In this interview, Scholastica CTO and Co-Founder Cory Schires discusses the development of Scholastica's single-source production service, how it differs from other XML-based workflows, and why we're working to optimize the production process for both humans and machines.

How Libraries Can Help Journals Cut Corporate Ties: LPForum Presentation Recap

During the 2017 LPForum Scholastica presented ways libraries can facilitate the democratization of academic journals beyond library publishing programs. Here's a recap.

4 Reasons editors should independently promote their academic journals and tips to get started

While a reputation for publishing high-quality content will always be the number one way for journals to set themselves apart in the eyes of authors and readers, regular promotion is becoming paramount to building and retaining a following. In this blog post, we break down why and steps to get started.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: July 27, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,130,187 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Tel: +81-3-5541-4400 (Monday–Friday, 09:30–18:00)

Giving an effective peer review: sample framework and comments

The system of peer-reviewed journals requires that academics review papers written by other academics, that is, papers written by their peers. We have previously discussed peer review generally ( Why do the rules and conventions of academic publishing keep changing and how can researchers stay current? ) and how authors can effectively respond to peer review ( Writing effective response letters to reviewers: Tips and a template ). This article will cover the other side: being a reviewer.

Here, we'll look at the basic tenets of peer review, and we've provided a sample framework to help new reviewers give comments that will help authors strengthen their papers.

Basic tenets of peer reviewing:

There are 5 basic tenets that should be kept in mind:

• Decline the review if you have any conflicts of interest (COIs).
• Remember that you're advising the journal editor, not making the decision about whether to accept or reject.
• Try to be helpful and always respectful to the author.
• Maintain confidentiality of the paper contents.
• Decline the review if you are too busy, or not familiar enough with the topic, to complete a proper review.

Peer reviews are intended to be impartial (unbiased), and so anyone asked to be a reviewer should consider, before accepting, whether they have any COIs. Anything that could make you, as a reviewer, consider the paper more or less favorably because of your relationship with the author is a COI. You should decline to review, or at minimum disclose to the journal editor, papers written by (a) past co-authors of yours, (b) members of your department, (c) your students or mentors, (d) personal friends, and (e) professional rivals. You should also decline if you will gain any potential financial or personal benefits from publication of the work. If you are unsure about whether a conflict of interest exists, check the journal's guidelines or with the journal editor. As examples of COI policies, Elsevier has a general factsheet on COIs and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides information about peer reviewer responsibilities .

The reviewer acts as an advisor to the journal editor. Because of this, the review should be more than a simple "accept" or "reject". When writing a review, you should describe the reasons for the recommendation so that the editor can make an informed decision. It is far more important to comment on the academic content of a paper than on grammar and punctuation. However, if the language is too poor to understand the contents adequately, then alert the journal editor. See below for a sample framework that will assist you in ensuring that you've covered the most important points in your review.

The review will be sent to the author of the paper. Because of this, reviewers are in a strong position to advise the author on how the paper could be strengthened. Whether you are recommending acceptance or rejection, the author could benefit from your feedback and advice. One particular caution is when you want to suggest the authors cite your own papers—do this sparingly. The review should be intended to help the author, not the reviewer. Finally, reviews should be respectful in tone. Unfortunately, we've all seen derogatory and unhelpful reviewer comments at times, which do not help the author. Peer review should be collegial and respectful.

Reviewers receive submitted papers with the understanding that they are handling confidential communications. As such, they should not discuss the review or disclose any of its content to third parties. Reviewers also should not use their knowledge of the work they are reviewing to further their own personal interests.

Reviewers who are not able to provide a proper review, due to lack of time or lack of expertise in the area covered by the paper, should decline the review.

Get featured articles and other author resources sent to you in English, Japanese, or both languages via our monthly newsletter.

Sample Framework for Your Reviewer Comments

Many journals provide reviewers with a form to fill out during review, but the framework below can be used in other cases.

Describe the basic contribution of the paper. This should be a few sentences on the topic of the paper. Beginning with this helps the journal editor and lets the author know that you've understood the paper.

"This paper discusses _______________. The main contribution of the paper is ____________."

Give your recommendation. You can use one of the following sentences.

"I recommend that this paper be accepted."

"I recommend that this paper be accepted after minor revision."

"I recommend that this paper not be accepted without major revision."

"I recommend that this paper be rejected."

Give your reasons for your recommendation. Label these as "major comments". A few examples are given to the right.

Major comments:

• The statistical analysis in this paper is suitable/unsuitable for….
• In terms of experimental technique, this paper is conventional/novel, and so…
• The Methods section does not clearly explain…
• The results obtained will be useful in…
• Some of the fundamental/recent papers in the field are not cited, among these…
• I would like to see some discussion of the findings of the papers in relation to recent findings and developments in ______.

Finally, give some additional comments about the paper. This is where you can note problems with spelling and/or grammar, suggest changes to figures and tables, and make other specific comments. Label these as "minor comments". A few examples are to the right.

Minor comments:

• In several places, you've used the term _____, but it seems you mean _____.
• In some of the figures, the legends are too small to be legible.
• On page ____, it is stated that _____, but the paper by Smith et al. states that ______. Can you comment on this disparity?
• Have you thought about testing this with _____________?

We hope you've found these tips useful. We currently offer support for new and experienced reviewers in a number of ways, including by translating their comments to English and by editing their English comments to ensure that the authors receiving the review have high-quality, well-worded comments that help them strengthen their manuscripts.

Also, if you have any questions about writing effective reviewer comments, please do let us know. We're happy to support you in this important academic task.

Stay up to date

Our monthly newsletter offers valuable tips on writing and presenting your research most effectively, as well as advice on avoiding or resolving common problems that authors face.

Looking for subject-specialists?

Your research represents you, and your career reflects thousands of hours of your time.

Here at ThinkSCIENCE, our translation and editing represent us, and our reputation reflects thousands of published papers and millions of corrections and improvements.

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

The Best Worst Reviewer Comments

by Dagmar Gross | Sep 30, 2020 | Writing Advice | 1 comment

Reviewer comments are the most fundamental component of the peer-review process for publishing scientific manuscripts. They are also the most anxiety-laden, occasionally joyful, hopefully constructive, but often disheartening, painful, and sometimes cruel and soul-crushing element. Good reviewers know how to provide useful, constructive comments that will legitimately improve the paper in an objective, gentle manner. But some reviewers are unduly callous with their comments – which can’t even be considered criticisms, because they don’t provide any questions or suggestions to actually improve the paper.

Several online sites and accounts provide an outlet for people to share some of the harshest reviewer comments they’ve received. If you’ve ever been completely deflated to the point of tears by a review of one of your submissions, take solace in some of these wicked reviewer comments:

It is very lengthy, full of mistakes, irrelevant information, and completely fails to attract readers. 

Did you have a seizure while writing this sentence? Because I feel like I had one while reading it.

This [sentence] construction should be reserved for police procedurals and bad Mafia movies.

Various statements seem to be sweeping and inaccurate generalizations with little robust justification.

By now, there are over 1,000 [articles on this topic], but these authors have not read a single one.

This is expected to be a research article that presents scientific findings, not science fiction.

This work is antithetical to the spirit of [XYZ] research and will impede potentially important developments.

This paper makes no contribution.

But fundamentally, why did you bother?

The figures presented are absolutely useless in their current form.

The authors report results from pages 16-26. This section reflects what I would brutally call ‘death by figures.’

The manuscript is full of severe major inaccuracies and is not suitable for a scientific journal.

The work is trivial, and there is no novelty in the work, the approach or the results. The authors do not solve anything and the implications in this context are quite possibly irrelevant.

The rest of the Introduction is just as badly done as the first paragraph so I will not continue.

There is hardly any paragraph (even in the abstract) that is not messy, disorganized, confusing, that does not contain mistakes (some are quite embarrassing), redundancies, abusive shortcuts or discussions that sound absurd.

Right now, there is zero rationale for the study and zero reason to read the study.

The authors should discard the data and collect it again properly.

Limited scholarship, flawed design, and faulty logic engender no enthusiasm whatsoever.

That’s not how science is done.

The lead author of this study has an apparent history of convincing otherwise well-respected scholars to be unwitting co-authors on his poor excuses for academic papers.

The authors conclusions not only contradict their own data but also the laws of thermodynamics.

Overall, I think this manuscript is a waste of time.

the sthanthard of writing is impercable

The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.

The paper descends into nonsense, never to return, on line 44.

I would very much have liked to read the article promised in the abstract.

It is at best of little value and, in the worst case, irrelevant and offensive.

Yes measurements were made, but why, besides a teaching exercise, remains obscure.

What, then, is the point of this manuscript, which presents no truly new data, methods, conclusions, or arguments? I would venture that it has no raison d’etre, and is neither novel nor helpful.

And here are what I consider the Top 10 Worst Reviewer Comments :

10. Studies undertaken in such a manner as presented here degrade all science by giving the semblance of legitimacy to illegitimate work.

9. The author should abandon the premise that his work can be considered research.

8. I urge the authors to not publish this article anywhere, as it will impede the progress of scientific understanding.

7. I am afraid this manuscript may contribute not so much towards the field’s advancement as much as toward its eventual demise.

6. The English language ranks this manuscript among the top 5 worst manuscripts I have ever reviewed.

5. This is clearly a submission that needs to be shredded, burned, and the ashes buried in multiple locations.

4. Publication of this paper will not advance our knowledge in any shape or form, it will just result in other researchers pointing out how bad this study actually is.

3. I have rarely read a more blown-up and annoying paper in the last couple of years than this hot-air balloon manuscript.

2. There are two possibilities. 1) This paper is part of an experiment to try and determine how badly a research paper can be but still be accepted, or 2) The authors are actual fools and it would be in the editor’s best interest to ban them from submitting to the journal in the future.

  And the Number One Worst Reviewer Comment Ever:

• If the editor somehow decides to accept this paper, they risk permanently destroying the credibility of this journal and its entire editorial board. As well as every author who has published in this journal or will do so in the future.

Feeling better? Maybe those reviewer comments you received weren’t nearly so bad after all? I hope so! And if they were, commiserate with a friend, have a rich dessert or a strong beverage, and put the paper aside for a few days. When you’re ready, you can tweak the paper and submit it to a different journal.

I welcome your comments and feedback, and I look forward to receiving topic suggestions for future weekly writing tips.

I believe your opinions are quite fascinating, I appreciate reading what you write. Hope to hear more from you. Subscribed.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Stay up To Date!

• Please notify me when new Weekly Writing Tips are posted
• I'd like to join the MedSci mailing list. I understand I can unsubscribe at any time.

Please select all the ways you would like to hear from MedSci Communications and Consulting Co.:

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Click to learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices.

Recent Posts

• Top 10 Words for 2022
• The Cover Letter
• My First Paper – Still a Big Deal
• “Data” Is Plural
• Is It Significant?
• Do You Bear It or Bare It?
• You’re Not Wrong

Recent Comments

• Dagmar Gross on Asking for an Extension
• Mohammad on Asking for an Extension
• dfgfg on Asking for an Extension
• James Candu Reactor on Spelling: American vs British vs Canadian
• Anonymous on Spelling: American vs British vs Canadian
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• September 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• Grammar / Spelling
• Nerdy Observations
• Uncategorized
• Writing Advice

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

How to respond to reviewer comments – the CALM way

April 3, 2019 | 5 min read

By Catherine Carnovale

Revising your manuscript doesn’t have to be stressful

More than likely, you’ve had one eye trained on your inbox for weeks, willing an acceptance notice to come sailing in. Your submission was brilliant – well written, novel – one could say…perfect! You went over every data point, checked every figure and poured hours into polishing the text before submission.

The revise and resubmit notice comes as a complete shock! How could the reviewers not love your brilliant data commentary? Maybe they just didn’t understand it…after all, it was a totally ingenious interpretation.

This is a normal reaction for a fledgling researcher. Supervisors are often so busy that the process of submission and revision is something of a mystery when starting out. Receiving criticism and defending your research takes practice. It also requires a “CALM” approach.

Here are four simple tips to help you respond to reviewers’ comments and fast track your paper for a positive decision!

C:  Comprehend  (keep your cool!)

When the decision letter arrives, read over the comments…Take time to understand the reviewers’ feedback and consider what they are asking you to do. You will be given a time frame for the revisions so don’t succumb to the pressure to reply immediately.

While you should be mindful to return your revisions with a timely response, allow yourself a while to process the comments before looking over them again the following day. By letting some time pass, you give yourself the opportunity to let your emotions subside, important for preventing an impulsive and heated response, which you would undoubtedly regret later.

A:  Answer  (amend or advocate!)

One of the functions of peer review is to encourage you - the author - to deliver stronger, more robust research. Think of the process as an opportunity to improve your manuscript, which will increase the likelihood that it will be useful to other researchers. After allowing yourself a day to process the comments, switch gears into “answer mode”! This is the time to trust your natural analytical processing skills.

Keep in mind that the editor of a journal will receive your comments and may forward them on to reviewers. Your responses should be polite and objective, balancing the line between being concise and complete. There is no space for ego in your response. Start by thanking the reviewers for identifying the weaknesses in your paper and providing you the opportunity to strengthen your research prior to publication.

The art of well-mannered rebuttal can be difficult to grasp but there is nothing inherently wrong about disagreeing on some of the reviewers’ points. Postulate your counter argument with a polite and sound response backed up with evidence to support your position.

L:  List  (make a list…check it twice!)

One of the best ways to ensure that you cover all the reviewers’ comments is to create a list. Reviewers shouldn’t have to re-read your whole manuscript again, combing it for your changes.

Organize your responses by listing each of the reviewers’ comments and addressing each one separately below. Resist the trap of lazy responses like “answered” or “fixed in manuscript”. Be clear about how you responded (copy and paste the updated text below the reviewers’ comments) and state where this fits into the manuscript (with a page and line number). This practice allows the editor to easily see that you have taken all the reviewers’ comments on board and evaluate your response to each of their concerns.

M:  Mindful  (make it easy for the editor – they will appreciate it!)

Editors are busy people, so be mindful of this! Being organized when you resubmit your manuscript allows the revision process to run smoothly and efficiently. Your resubmission should contain four things:

Cover letter

A brief and polite cover letter addressed to the editor should accompany your resubmission. Generally written by the corresponding author, your cover letter should include your manuscript details and a brief statement to note the resubmission. A sincere thanks to the editor for the opportunity to improve and resubmit your manuscript is also a nice touch.

List of responses

Include the list that you created with each of the reviewers’ comments and your response. This list not only paints you as an organized, methodical researcher, but also makes it easier for the editor to reassess your manuscript.

Track changes document

Return your revised manuscript with your revisions highlighted. Use a tool like Microsoft Word’s “track changes” feature (or something similar) to illustrate how and where your revised manuscript has been changed. This is the easiest way to show the editor that you have indeed made all the changes you listed!

Clean version

Submit a “clean” version of your manuscript to show your work in its final form. This file is usually uploaded as the “manuscript” file and allows the editor to read your work without the distraction of marked-up detail, ensuring that it is ready for production.

Revising your manuscript doesn’t have to be stressful. If you remember to stay “CALM” and keep your cool, you will give yourself the best chance of having your work published. Good luck!

Contributor

Catherine Carnovale

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter Responding to the comments peer reviewers offer when they assess your research paper can be as challenging as writing the original manuscript, especially when the necessity of revising your paper to resolve problems is considered as well. How you respond to the criticism you receive can have a significant impact on whether your paper will ultimately be published or not, so getting your letter right is imperative. Although the process of responding, revising and perhaps responding and revising yet again can be frustrating and time consuming, it is important to remember that you, the journal editor with whom you are communicating and the peer reviewers who are assessing your writing and research are all working toward the same goal – the timely publication of an excellent research paper. A professional collegial approach that adopts a courteous and objective tone to deal clearly and thoroughly with every detail and issue will make the work of the editor and reviewers more efficient and the publication cycle as a whole smoother and more successful. Your prose should, of course, be formal and correct in every way, so do read and polish your response until every sentence is as clear, accurate and precise as you can make it. Since each response letter to reviewer comments is unique, the letter below can only serve as a constructive example as you craft your own response. The names, titles, contact information and publishing situation used in this letter are entirely fictional, but the principles and procedures are realistic and sound. The complete date and full mailing addresses are used in the style of a traditional business letter despite the assumption of an email format. You may or may not want to adopt this approach, but do be sure to provide your current contact information and the name of the editor you are addressing (normally the editor who sent you the decision letter), his or her title and the title of the journal. The subject line above the salutation is not strictly necessary unless requested in the editor’s or journal’s instructions, but if the journal has given your manuscript a number or another form of reference, do include it. The way in which changes should be made and the revised manuscript submitted vary among journals and proofreaders. This letter assumes that the authors have been asked to mark changes by using red font and resubmit their revised manuscript with their response via email, but do check guidelines and the decision letter you received for the requirements for your responses and revised manuscript, including any information on deadlines. PhD Thesis Editing Services Keep in mind as you write that not just the editor but all of the reviewers may end up seeing everything you have written. Editors may cut and paste and share your responses as they see fit to achieve the results they envision for your paper, so be prepared for this possibility. You should definitely address each of the reviewers individually as you respond to his or her comments, aiming for a layout that makes it absolutely clear which comment you are responding to at any given moment and exactly what you have changed in your manuscript. Some authors use different fonts and colours to distinguish reviewer comments from author responses and changes, but do be aware that these features can be lost in online formats, so a Word document or pdf file would be a more reliable choice for such formatting. Do not hesitate to repeat information as necessary, incorporating small adjustments geared at the person you are addressing in each case (the discussion of Table 1 in the letter below is an example of this), but remember not to write anything to one reviewer that you would not want another one to read. If there are matters of a particularly sensitive nature that you wish to communicate to the editor only, be sure to discuss them in a separate document that is clearly not intended for reviewer eyes. Finally, do not neglect to thank the editor and reviewers for their observations and comments. Their time is precious and many comments on your manuscript mean that they have dedicated a significant portion of it to help you improve your work. Be careful not to overstate your gratitude, however, and risk the impression of hollow flattery. Thoughtful attention to each of the observations and suggestions your reviewers offer will repay their efforts far more effectively.

A Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers

Edward Researcher Palaeography Institute 1717 Writer’s Lane South River, MI, USA, 484848 734-734-7344 [email protected]

Dr Helen Wordsmith Assistant Editor Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society 717 Reader’s Row London, UK, SW6 9DE [email protected]

November 14, 2017

Subject: Revision and resubmission of manuscript JSMS 17-N6688

Dear Dr Wordsmith,

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript.’ The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the abstract and other aspects of the paper.

I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in red in the paper as you requested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email message. Most of the revisions prompted by the reviewers’ comments are minor and require no further explanation than what appears in my responses below, but I did want to bring Table 1 to your attention. This table lists, locates and briefly describes each of the hands we have separated from the many found in the Brigantine Manuscript, dated at least approximately and, in the case of the Pantofola di Seta ’s first mate, identified with certainty. It does not list hands and scripts about which we remain uncertain, and for this reason Reviewer 1 suggests that it be removed and the descriptions of hands that it contains used to lengthen the descriptions in the main text of the paper. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, would like to see the table longer, with all possible hands and scripts included and tentative dates provided wherever possible. We considered both solutions and finally decided on a longer table as a tool that sets the information out clearly and comparatively. Our assumption is that readers will more readily return to a table when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. This allowed us to shorten and simplify the discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper, but it has resulted in a larger table, so we are eager to know your perspective on the matter. Although comments from both reviewers suggest that our original approach was not as successful as we would have liked, the table could easily be removed as per Reviewer 1’s advice and the text lengthened instead if that would be preferable. In fact, we tried the revisions that way at first and would be happy to send that version along as well if it might be helpful.

In response to your comments on the abstract, we have toned down the codicological and palaeographical terminology aimed at manuscript specialists and played up the new certainty that this book belonged to real pirates and was treated as the Pantofola di Seta ’s log by a first mate who was very proud of the crew’s achievements. Those opening sentences you mentioned now read: ‘Like the pirates whose barbaric activities it celebrates, the Brigantine Manuscript slipped off into the fog in the early fourteenth century, finally emerging in 2015. It had been miraculously preserved for 700 years in a hidden chamber carved into the keelson of a recently excavated Mediterranean brigantine named Pantofola di Seta (the Silk Slipper ). Extensive examination of the book’s contents and scripts has now lifted more of that fog, revealing at least five distinct hands writing over a period of more than 80 years and one of them a rather gifted first mate – Benutto Nero – who logged daily entries in passable Latin for almost six years from 1282 to 1288.’ We hope you agree that this opening is much more engaging, particularly for non-specialist readers, but we are certainly happy to make further changes to the abstract.

Regarding more minor matters, we have now changed our spelling and phrasing patterns from American to British English. I apologise for neglecting that requirement in the author instructions when we originally submitted the manuscript. We have also made good use of the two articles you mentioned. Susan Goodorder’s paper did indeed help us refine the subsections and their headings in the discussion section of our manuscript, and General Saltydog’s glossary of nautical terms enabled us to use more appropriate language when discussing ships and seamanship – ‘ropes,’ for instance, are now ‘lines’ throughout and we are much clearer on terms such as ‘leeboard,’ ‘starboard’ and ‘sheet.’ We hope the revised manuscript will better suit the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society but are happy to consider further revisions, and we thank you for your continued interest in our research.

Edward Researcher

Edward Researcher Professor of Medieval Latin Palaeography Institute

Reviewer Comments, Author Responses and Manuscript Changes

Comment 1: ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript’ was an engaging and informative read and the authors’ assessment of hands and scripts clear and accurate. The paper is perfect for the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society . I am uncertain that Table 1 is necessary and I have discovered one grammatical error which unfortunately appears throughout the manuscript and must be repaired, but beyond that I have very little helpful commentary to offer.

Response: Thank you! We found your comments extremely helpful and have revised accordingly.

Comment 2: Table 1 does not contain all the scripts and hands discussed in the paper, so it seems incomplete. I preferred the lengthier descriptions in the main text and would recommend that the table be removed and the descriptions of the more certain hands it contains be used to lengthen those descriptions in the main text.

Response: Both you and the other reviewer commented on this table, so we are grateful to know that our current approach requires some rethinking. Unfortunately, your suggestions differ, with the second reviewer asking that Table 1 be lengthened to include all hands and scripts in the manuscript. We have considered both solutions and decided to keep Table 1, but we have also asked the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, for her feedback on this issue and are certainly willing to remove the table as you suggested if that proves best for the paper and the journal.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the rest of the hands and scripts we have detected in the manuscript, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will readily return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not removed the descriptions of hands and scripts that you found useful in the main text, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 3: Grammar and sentence structure is adequate for the most part, but dangling modifiers are a problem throughout the paper and at times obscure the authors’ meaning. For example, this sentence appears on p.6: ‘With his entrails already tumbling out on the deck, the oarsman gave his victim a last kick and lopped his head off.’ I’m almost certain that the intention here is to suggest that the victim, not the attacking oarsman, is suffering loss of entrails, but that is not what the sentence says. Here and elsewhere corrections are required. Response: Thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected.

Changes: We have gone through the entire manuscript carefully and adjusted every relevant sentence to avoid dangling modifiers and clarify our meaning. For example, the sentence you noted now reads: ‘The oarsman waited until his victim’s entrails were tumbling out on the deck before he gave him one last kick and lopped his head off.’ This and other revised sentences are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: It is clear that the authors know a good deal more about medieval manuscripts than about seamanship, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed. Response: Thank you for your assessment. We are indeed manuscript specialists who are learning more about ships and the sea via our studies of the Brigantine Manuscript.

Comment 2: There seems to be some confusion in the paper about the meaning of ‘leeboard’ and ‘starboard’ and more generally I’d like to see more accurate nautical terminology used. I wouldn’t recommend the more obscure vocabulary of vessels and seamanship which the authors are unlikely to need in any case, but the most common applicable terms should certainly be used. ‘Ropes’ should be ‘lines,’ ‘back’ of the boat should be ‘stern’ and so on.

Response: We agree that better use of nautical terminology would be more accurate and precise and have taken your advice.

Changes: We consulted the nautical glossary compiled by General Saltydog that was recommended by the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, and improved or corrected every ambiguous or inaccurate term we detected. Each changed word is marked in red in the revised paper, and we would be happy to make further alterations.

Comment 3: Table 1 seems too selective. It is obviously easier to include only those hands that the authors are certain about, but I would like to see a complete list of hands and scripts along with the authors’ best guesses at possible dates. I suspect many of the journal’s readers, especially those who are not manuscript specialists, would prefer this information in an effective tabular format. Response: Thank you for reminding us how important it is to present complex material like details of hands and scripts in a concise and readily accessible way. We agree that the table would be better if it included all hands in the manuscript and have made the following changes.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the remaining hands and scripts, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not entirely removed the descriptions of hands and scripts from the main text of the paper, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 4: The formatting of the discussion section seems inconsistent with the preceding sections of the manuscript and the journal’s guidelines. The discussion itself follows a logical line of reasoning for the most part and presents persuasive interpretations and conclusions, but it is a little complex at times, so more divisions and a more defined system of organisation would be helpful. Response: Thank you for this excellent observation. The discussion section is a little dense at times and could use more structure and clear guidance for the reader.

Changes: We have added a number of subsections with informative headings that summarise key points in the discussion. We used as a model an article published by the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society and recommended by Dr Wordsmith, and we believe that the argument is clearer as a result, but we would welcome comments on particular sections and headings if you have further concerns. The new material is marked in red in the revised paper.

Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services? At Proof-Reading-Service.com we offer the highest quality journal article editing , phd thesis editing and proofreading services via our large and extremely dedicated team of academic and scientific professionals. All of our proofreaders are native speakers of English who have earned their own postgraduate degrees, and their areas of specialisation cover such a wide range of disciplines that we are able to help our international clientele with research editing to improve and perfect all kinds of academic manuscripts for successful publication. Many of the carefully trained members of our expert editing and proofreading team work predominantly on articles intended for publication in scholarly journals, applying painstaking journal editing standards to ensure that the references and formatting used in each paper are in conformity with the journal’s instructions for authors and to correct any grammar, spelling, punctuation or simple typing errors. In this way, we enable our clients to report their research in the clear and accurate ways required to impress acquisitions proofreaders and achieve publication.

Our scientific proofreading services for the authors of a wide variety of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also offer manuscript proofreading services and have the experience and expertise to proofread and edit manuscripts in all scholarly disciplines, as well as beyond them. We have team members who specialise in medical proofreading services , and some of our experts dedicate their time exclusively to PhD proofreading and master’s proofreading , offering research students the opportunity to improve their use of formatting and language through the most exacting PhD thesis editing and dissertation proofreading practices. Whether you are preparing a conference paper for presentation, polishing a progress report to share with colleagues, or facing the daunting task of editing and perfecting any kind of scholarly document for publication, a qualified member of our professional team can provide invaluable assistance and give you greater confidence in your written work.

If you are in the process of preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in a new book, Guide to Journal Publication , which is available on our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.

Guide to Academic and Scientific Publication

How to get your writing published in scholarly journals.

It provides practical advice on planning, preparing and submitting articles for publication in scholarly journals.

PhD Success

How to write a doctoral thesis.

If you are in the process of preparing a PhD thesis for submission, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in the book, How to Write a Doctoral Thesis , which is available on our thesis proofreading website.

PhD Success: How to Write a Doctoral Thesis provides guidance for students familiar with English and the procedures of English universities, but it also acknowledges that many theses in the English language are now written by candidates whose first language is not English, so it carefully explains the scholarly styles, conventions and standards expected of a successful doctoral thesis in the English language.

Why Is Proofreading Important?

To improve the quality of papers.

Effective proofreading is absolutely vital to the production of high-quality scholarly and professional documents. When done carefully, correctly and thoroughly, proofreading can make the difference between writing that communicates successfully with its intended readers and writing that does not. No author creates a perfect text without reviewing, reflecting on and revising what he or she has written, and proofreading is an extremely important part of this process.

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept 

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

• Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
• The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
• It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
• Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

• In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
• What length should your review be?
• Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
• Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
• Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

• Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
• Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
• Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

• Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
• Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
• Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

• Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
• Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
• Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
• Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

• Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
• First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
• Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

• Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
• Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
• Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
• Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
• Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
• Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
• Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
• Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
• Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

• To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
• To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
• To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
• To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
• To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
• To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
• To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
• To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

• Title of the article
• Title of the journal
• Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

• If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
• Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
• Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
• Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

• As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
• While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
• Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
• Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
• Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
• Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

• Punctuation
• Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

What Is A Review Article?

How to write an article review, how to write an article review in apa format.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

100 Examples: How to Write Performance Review Comments

By Status.net Editorial Team on December 18, 2023 — 18 minutes to read

• Setting the Right Tone Part 1
• Positive Phrases That Can Be Used in a Performance Review Part 2
• How to Highlight an Employee’s Strengths with Specific Examples Part 3
• Example Comments to Include to Provide Constructive Feedback Part 4
• Structuring Your Comments Part 5
• Using Examples in Comments Part 6
• Encouraging Continuous Development Part 7
• Avoiding Common Pitfalls Part 8
• Wrapping up the Review Part 9

Performance reviews are evaluations of an employee’s work performance, usually conducted periodically by a supervisor or manager. These assessments typically focus on an employee’s achievements, strengths, areas for improvement, and goals for the future. You might receive a performance review as a formal annual assessment or as periodic informal check-ins with your manager.

Part 1 Setting the Right Tone

Using positive language.

When writing performance review comments, it’s vital to use positive language. This not only makes the receiver more receptive to your feedback but also helps create an empowering experience. For example, words like “improve,” “achieve,” and “progress” are encouraging and can boost the employee’s motivation.

Instead of saying, “You failed to meet the deadline,” try using a more positive approach: “Although you didn’t meet the deadline, we appreciate your hard work and believe you can do better next time.” This simple change in tone shows that you recognize their effort and are confident in their potential for growth.

Constructive Criticism Techniques

To offer constructive criticism, focus on specific behaviors and outcomes rather than making personal judgments. For instance, avoid general statements like, “You’re not a good team player.” Instead, provide actionable feedback, such as, “During team meetings, try to engage more with your colleagues by asking questions and sharing your ideas.”

When discussing areas for improvement, pair them with related strengths or achievements. This way, you’re not only pointing out the problem but also acknowledging their effort and capability. For example, “Your creative ideas have significantly contributed to the project; however, working on time management will help you deliver even better results.”

Part 2 Positive Phrases That Can Be Used in a Performance Review

Using positive phrases can help boost employee morale and encourage growth. Here are some examples:

• 1. “Your creativity has brought fresh ideas that have driven innovation within our team.”
• 2. “You have shown exceptional growth and learning in your role.”
• 3. “Your dedication to meeting project deadlines contributes to our team’s success.”
• 4. “You have a positive attitude that positively influences the workplace environment.”
• 5. “You demonstrate strong problem-solving skills that help us overcome challenges.”
• 6. “Your commitment to excellence is evident in every task you undertake.”
• 7. “You effectively manage your time and prioritize tasks efficiently.”
• 8. “Your communication skills have been pivotal in maintaining clear and effective dialogue between team members.”
• 9. “You have shown remarkable initiative in taking on new responsibilities.”
• 10. “Your work ethic is an inspiration to those around you.”
• 11. “You consistently produce high-quality work that exceeds our standards.”
• 12. “You have a knack for building strong, collaborative relationships with clients and co-workers.”
• 13. “Your flexibility in adapting to change has made a significant impact on our team’s performance.”
• 14. “You have demonstrated leadership qualities that have guided our team through various projects.”
• 15. “Your ability to stay calm under pressure has been a stabilizing force for the team.”
• 16. “You are a reliable employee who colleagues can always count on.”
• 17. “Your analytical skills have contributed to more informed decision-making processes.”
• 18. “You consistently set a great example with your professional demeanor.”
• 19. “Your positive energy is contagious and boosts team morale.”
• 20. “You have a keen eye for identifying areas for improvement and implementing effective solutions.”
• 21. “You are proactive in seeking feedback and using it to enhance your performance.”
• 22. “Your technical skills have been a valuable asset to our team’s operations.”
• 23. “You have effectively mentored other team members, enhancing their skills and confidence.”
• 24. “Your strategic thinking has played a key role in our department’s planning and success.”
• 25. “You have a unique ability to turn challenges into opportunities.”
• 26. “Your contributions to the team often exceed the scope of your role, showing your commitment to our goals.”
• 27. “You maintain a high level of professionalism in all interactions, which reflects well on our team.”
• 28. “You have a continuous improvement mindset that helps elevate the entire team’s performance.”
• 29. “Your enthusiasm for your work is infectious and motivates others to strive for excellence.”
• 30. “You handle complex projects with ease, ensuring smooth operations and delivery.”
• 31. “You consistently go above and beyond expectations.”
• 32. “Your ability to adapt to new challenges has been impressive.”
• 33. “You are an excellent team player, and your colleagues value your support.”
• 34. “Your strong attention to detail ensures high-quality results.”

Remember to support these positive statements with concrete examples from the employee’s work.

Part 3 How to Highlight an Employee’s Strengths with Specific Examples

When discussing an employee’s strengths, try to be specific and use examples from their recent work. Focus on their skills and accomplishments, tying them to the overall success of the team or the company.

1. “I’ve noticed how effectively you manage your time, particularly during the (…) project when you delivered your part ahead of schedule without compromising on quality.”

2. “Your ability to lead the team was evident in the way you stepped up during the (…) event, ensuring that everyone was motivated and on task.”

3. “Your creative problem-solving skills really shone when you found a workaround for the budget issue on the (…) project.”

4. “Your attention to detail didn’t go unnoticed on the (…) report, where your thoroughness prevented potential errors.”

5. “Your technical skills are a huge asset, as seen when you implemented the new software that increased our team’s productivity.”

6. “Your communication skills have improved significantly, especially when you presented the quarterly results and received positive feedback from the stakeholders.”

7. “Your commitment to professional development is commendable, like when you completed the advanced training in (…) and immediately applied those skills to benefit our team.”

8. “Your teamwork has been outstanding, particularly when you assisted a new team member with onboarding and helped them become productive quickly.”

9. “Your initiative to organize the weekly brainstorming sessions has greatly enhanced our team’s creativity and collaboration.”

10. “Your customer service skills have consistently been exceptional, as evidenced by the glowing reviews from clients like in the (…) project.”

11. “Your sales performance has been remarkable, especially when you exceeded your targets by 20% last quarter.”

12. “Your adaptability was clearly demonstrated during the transition to remote work, where you maintained high productivity levels.”

13. “Your positive attitude has been a morale booster for the team, like when you encouraged everyone during the tight deadline for the (…) project.”

14. “Your strategic thinking was key in identifying new market opportunities that led to the (…) initiative.”

15. “Your reliability is something we can always count on, as you’ve never missed a deadline and always deliver quality work.”

16. “Your mentorship has greatly benefited your colleagues, such as when you guided your peer through the complex process of (…).”

17. “Your ability to communicate with clients has been outstanding, as seen in the successful onboarding of the (…) project.”

18. “Your analytical skills have helped us understand customer data better, leading to more targeted marketing strategies.”

19. “Your dedication to the company’s mission was evident when you volunteered to lead the corporate social responsibility program.”

20. “Your conflict resolution skills have been instrumental in maintaining a harmonious work environment, especially during the team restructuring.”

21. “Your writing skills have been invaluable, particularly in drafting the clear and persuasive proposal that won us the (…) grant.”

22. “Your resilience is commendable, as seen when you managed to keep the team focused and productive even amidst several unforeseen challenges.”

23. “Your organizational skills are top-notch, which was clear when you coordinated the successful industry conference last month.”

24. “Your ability to work under pressure was evident during the end-of-year audit, where you managed to deliver accurate reports within tight deadlines.”

25. “Your financial acumen saved the company significant costs by renegotiating vendor contracts effectively.”

26. “Your hands-on approach in the training of new hires has ensured they are fully equipped to perform their roles successfully.”

Part 4 Example Comments to Include in a Performance Review to Provide Constructive Feedback

Constructive feedback should be clear, specific, and actionable. Instead of saying, “You need to improve your time management,” try offering suggestions like, “Consider using a calendaring tool to better organize your tasks and deadlines, which will help ensure projects are completed in a timely manner.” Focus on behaviors that can be improved and support your feedback with examples.

1. “I’ve noticed that you excel in client interactions, consistently providing thoughtful and helpful responses. To further enhance your client management skills, I suggest participating in advanced communication workshops.”

2. “Your ability to work independently is impressive; however, I encourage you to engage more with the team during collaborative projects to contribute your valuable insights and learn from others’ perspectives.”

3. “You have shown great initiative in your role, but there have been instances where attention to detail could be improved. Double-checking your work before submission could help mitigate any minor errors.”

4. “Your creativity in problem-solving is commendable. To foster this skill, I recommend documenting your processes to share with the team, which could inspire innovative approaches across the department.”

5. “While you meet most deadlines, I’ve observed that some tasks are completed at the last minute. Prioritizing your workload and setting earlier internal deadlines might help reduce last-minute rushes.”

6. “You have a strong grasp of our project goals, yet sometimes there’s hesitation in decision-making. Confidence can be built through seeking mentorship or additional training in areas of uncertainty.”

7. “Your technical skills are outstanding, and to complement them, I suggest working on developing your presentation skills to effectively communicate your ideas to non-technical team members.”

8. “I appreciate your dedication to the team, but I’ve noticed that work-life balance could be an area for improvement. Managing your time to leave the office at a reasonable hour could benefit your overall well-being.”

9. “You often contribute innovative ideas in meetings; to take this further, I encourage you to lead a brainstorming session, which could help refine and implement these concepts.”

10. “Your project management is generally strong, yet there’s room to enhance your delegation skills. Trusting your team with more responsibilities can improve efficiency and team development.”

11. “You consistently produce high-quality work, though sometimes at a slower pace. Implementing productivity techniques, like the Pomodoro method, might help increase your output without sacrificing quality.”

12. “Your punctuality and attendance are commendable. To build on this, setting a personal goal to contribute at least one key point in meetings could further demonstrate your engagement.”

13. “You are very responsive to feedback, which is great. To take it a step further, actively seeking out feedback periodically could provide you with more opportunities for growth.”

14. “Your reports are always thorough, but they can be quite lengthy. Learning to condense information without losing clarity could make your reports more accessible to readers.”

15. “You show great enthusiasm for new projects, and I’d love to see you carry that energy through to project completion by setting and reviewing progress milestones.”

16. “Your teamwork is a strength, but taking on a leadership role in group tasks could help you develop management skills and provide valuable experience.”

17. “You’ve shown you can handle routine tasks well; now, challenging yourself with more complex assignments could further your expertise and career development.”

18. “Your sales numbers are impressive, and to enhance your performance even more, consider adopting a CRM tool to track customer interactions and follow-ups systematically.”

19. “You are very organized in your work, which is excellent. To improve efficiency, you might explore new project management software that could streamline your processes.”

20. “You handle customer complaints with patience and empathy. Enhancing your skills with additional conflict resolution training could make you even more effective in these situations.”

21. “Your ability to adhere to the budget is a real asset. To build on this, developing forecasting techniques could help you anticipate financial challenges and opportunities.”

22. “You are a reliable employee who often assists others. To further your development, I suggest you mentor a newer team member, which can help you hone your leadership abilities.”

23. “Your written communication is clear and concise. Expanding your skill set to include technical writing could open up new opportunities for you within the company.”

24. “You have a knack for identifying risks early on. Developing a formal risk assessment process could benefit the entire team by mitigating potential issues before they arise.”

25. “You’ve taken on additional responsibilities well. Now, focusing on strategic planning could help you understand how these tasks fit into the company’s broader goals.”

26. “Your proactive approach to learning new software is commendable. Sharing your knowledge through a short training session with colleagues could enhance team productivity.”

27. “You make sound decisions most of the time; however, incorporating data analysis into your decision-making process could provide a stronger foundation for those decisions.”

28. “You are very good at following up with clients. To improve even further, you might consider developing a standardized follow-up protocol to ensure consistency across all client interactions.”

29. “Your public speaking skills have improved, which is great to see. Joining a professional speaking group could provide you with even more opportunities to practice and refine these skills.”

30. “You have a strong understanding of our products, and to leverage that knowledge, you could create informational materials to help educate the rest of the team on product features and benefits.”

Part 5 Structuring Your Comments

Highlight achievements.

When discussing achievements, make sure to acknowledge your employee’s hard work and dedication. Start with praising their accomplishments, and then specifically describe what they did well. For example:

• “You successfully increased sales by 15% this quarter, which is an impressive accomplishment.”
• “Your attention to detail in project management led to a more efficient workflow.”
• “You’ve consistently shown strong leadership within the team, fostering a positive work environment.”

Don’t forget to include any metrics or data that showcase their success.

Addressing Areas for Improvement

When addressing areas for improvement, ensure you are providing constructive feedback and actionable advice. Be supportive and empathetic, framing the conversation as an opportunity for growth. For example:

• “Although you’ve made progress in time management, there’s still room for improvement. Setting daily priorities and using a scheduling tool might help you better manage your tasks.”
• “Your presentations are engaging, but sometimes you speak too fast. Practicing your pacing can help your message come across more clearly.”
• “Working on improving your written communication will make it easier for colleagues to understand your proposals.”

Focusing on Behavior and Results

When providing comments, ensure you focus on observable behaviors and results that can be measured or quantified. This helps to keep the feedback objective and avoids misunderstanding. For example:

• “You’ve demonstrated a strong ability to negotiate, which resulted in a larger budget for our team.”
• “Working on being more patient with new team members will help foster a supportive environment. Offering guidance and encouragement can go a long way.”
• “Your ability to collaborate effectively with other departments has contributed significantly to the success of our projects.

Purpose of Effective Comments

Effective performance review comments serve to support your growth and development in your job. They provide you with constructive feedback that can help you identify your strengths and weaknesses, as well as areas where you can improve. Well-written comments are:

• Specific – They offer precise examples of what you did well or need to improve.
• Actionable – They provide guidance on how you can enhance your performance.
• Relevant – They relate directly to your job responsibilities and objectives.
• Balanced – They consider both your achievements and areas for improvement.

For example, instead of vaguely saying, “You need to improve your communication skills,” helpful comments might go like this: “When presenting to clients, try to make eye contact and speak more confidently. This will help you build rapport and better convey your ideas.”

Part 6 Using Examples in Comments

Describing specific instances.

When providing feedback in performance reviews, it’s important to use specific examples to illustrate your points. This helps the employee understand the exact situations you are talking about and shows that you have paid attention to their work. For instance, instead of saying, “You need to communicate better with your team,” you could say, “I noticed at last week’s project meeting that you didn’t share updates about your progress with the rest of the team. Sharing this information can help everyone stay aligned and avoid duplication of work.”

Adding concrete instances of behavior or results allows your comments to carry more weight, making them more useful for the employee. They can then focus on these instances to learn and improve. For example, instead of saying, “You are a great problem solver,” mention a specific situation when the employee went above and beyond to address a challenge, like this: “You did a fantastic job troubleshooting the server issue last month, finding the root cause, and resolving it within two hours. That saved the company from significant downtime.”

Relating Examples to Goals

Aligning your feedback and examples to the employee’s goals helps to clarify how their actions affect their progress towards meeting their objectives. This demonstrates that you are invested in your employee’s growth and success. When discussing accomplishments, point out how they contributed to meeting their goals. For instance, “Your dedication to completing the new client proposal led to it being both well-received and signed, which was a crucial part of reaching this quarter’s sales target.”

On the other hand, when addressing areas that need improvement, emphasize how the observed behavior may hinder the employee’s progress towards their goals. For example, “Your tendency to miss weekly status update meetings has made it difficult for other team members to keep track of your projects, which can delay their own work and impede reaching our team goals.”

Using examples tied to their goals highlights the direct impact of the employee’s actions, whether positive or negative, on their overall performance and success. This encourages employees to take ownership of their development and strive for improvement in their day-to-day activities.

Part 7 Encouraging Continuous Development

Setting goals for the next period.

Help your employees grow by setting clear and achievable goals for the next period. Instead of setting a vague objective, try to make it specific and measurable. For example, rather than saying “Improve your sales skills,” you could say “Increase your sales numbers by 10% in the next quarter.”

When you provide feedback on their performance, explain how they can improve and discuss the steps needed to achieve their goals. For instance, if your employee needs to improve their presentation skills, suggest that they attend a workshop or take an online course. This way, they’ll have a clear direction to follow, and it will be easier to monitor their progress.

Offering Resources for Growth

Supporting your employees in their professional development is an important aspect of their career growth. Offer resources that can help them learn new skills and refine existing ones. These resources could include training programs, online courses, mentoring, or even access to relevant conferences and seminars.

Part 8 Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Steering clear of vague language.

To write effective performance review comments, avoid using vague language. Instead, get specific about the areas in which the employee demonstrates success or needs improvement. For example, instead of saying “You have great communication skills,” say “You are excellent at explaining complex ideas in simple terms during team meetings.” This specificity allows employees to understand their strengths and weaknesses and work towards improvement.

Avoiding Personal Critiques

Performance reviews should focus on an employee’s job performance, not their personality traits. Critiquing someone’s character can create a negative environment and perception of bias. Focus on tangible actions and behaviors to offer constructive feedback. For example, instead of saying “You are too emotional and disorganized,” say “It would be helpful if you work on keeping a more structured approach to your projects and manage your emotions during tense situations.”

Balancing Feedback Across Teams

When providing feedback, ensure that it is consistent and fair across all team members. Avoid comparing employees to one another during individual reviews, as this can cause resentment and competition. Instead, use benchmarks and objectives to evaluate their performance. For example, say “Your sales numbers have consistently surpassed targets for the last quarter” or “You have taken on extra responsibilities within your role, such as managing the new interns, which has shown great initiative.” By maintaining a balanced, objective approach, you can support your team and help them grow in their roles.

Part 9 Wrapping up the Review

Summarizing key points.

When you’re ready to finish the performance review, take a moment to recap the main points discussed. This can help reinforce important issues and ensure that both you and the employee understand what has been covered. For example:

• Highlight the employee’s strengths and achievements, such as meeting or exceeding targets, demonstrating leadership, or showing exceptional teamwork.
• Address areas for improvement or development, such as time management, customer service skills, or goal-setting. Offer specific suggestions, like attending a training or finding a mentor.
• Reiterate any action items or goals that have been set during the review, and discuss how progress will be monitored and evaluated.

Closing on a Positive Note

End the performance review on a positive note to foster a sense of motivation and enthusiasm. Show appreciation for the employee’s efforts, and express confidence in their ability to continue growing and succeeding in their role. Some ways to do this include:

• Offer words of encouragement and support, like “I believe in your potential to make a real difference” or “Your dedication to improving is evident, and I’m excited to see what you can achieve.”
• Reflect on any positive changes the employee has already made, emphasizing the impact this has had on the team or the organization.
• Discuss future opportunities for growth, such as potential projects, promotions, or new responsibilities that align with the employee’s skills and aspirations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you give examples of words that effectively describe employee performance.

Here are some words that can help describe employee performance:

• Goal-oriented
• Collaborative
• Detail-oriented

When using these words, make sure to include specific examples, so the employee understands the context and the impact of their work.

How can a manager identify areas for improvement in a performance review, and can you provide examples?

When pointing out areas for improvement, focus on specific behaviors or skills that need development. For example, if an employee struggles with delegating tasks, you could say, “To help improve your team’s efficiency, consider working on your delegation skills by identifying tasks that others can take on and providing clear guidance.” Stay supportive and offer solutions to help the employee grow.

What are the key elements to writing a summary for a performance appraisal?

Writing an effective performance appraisal summary should include:

• A brief recap of the employee’s accomplishments and strengths.
• Specific examples of their impact on the team or company.
• Areas for improvement, with clear and actionable suggestions for growth.
• A reiteration of your support and confidence in their ability to succeed.
• Flexibility: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• Initiative: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• Productivity: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• Listening Skills: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• Conflict Resolution: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• Strategic Thinking: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples

50 Great Peer Review Examples: Sample Phrases + Scenarios

by Emre Ok March 16, 2024, 10:48 am updated August 8, 2024, 12:19 pm 475 Views

Peer review is a concept that has multiple different applications and definitions. Depending on your field, the definition of peer review can change greatly.

In the workplace, the meaning of peer review or peer feedback is that it is simply the input of a peer or colleague on another peer’s performance, attitude, output, or any other performance metric .

While in the academic world peer review’s definition is the examination of an academic paper by another fellow scholar in the field.

Even in the American legal system , people are judged in front of a jury made up of their peers.

It is clear as day that peer feedback carries a lot of weight and power. The input from someone who has the same experience with you day in and day out is on occasion, more meaningful than the feedback from direct reports or feedback from managers .

So here are 50 peer review examples and sample peer feedback phrases that can help you practice peer-to-peer feedback more effectively!

Table of Contents

Peer Feedback Examples: Offering Peers Constructive Criticism

One of the most difficult types of feedback to offer is constructive criticism. Whether you are a chief people officer or a junior employee, offering someone constructive criticism is a tight rope to walk.

When you are offering constructive criticism to a peer? That difficulty level is doubled. People can take constructive criticism from above or below.

One place where criticism can really sting is when it comes from someone at their level. That is why the peer feedback phrases below can certainly be of help.

Below you will find 10 peer review example phrases that offer constructive feedback to peers:

• “I really appreciate the effort you’ve put into this project, especially your attention to detail in the design phase. I wonder if considering alternative approaches to the user interface might enhance user engagement. Perhaps we could explore some user feedback or current trends in UI design to guide us.”
• “Your presentation had some compelling points, particularly the data analysis section. However, I noticed a few instances where the connection between your arguments wasn’t entirely clear. For example, when transitioning from the market analysis to consumer trends, a clearer linkage could help the audience follow your thought process more effectively.”
• “I see you’ve put a lot of work into developing this marketing strategy, and it shows promise. To address the issue with the target demographic, it might be beneficial to integrate more specific market research data. I can share a few resources on market analysis that could provide some valuable insights for this section.”
• “You’ve done an excellent job balancing different aspects of the project, but I think there’s an opportunity to enhance the overall impact by integrating some feedback we received in the last review. For instance, incorporating more user testimonials could strengthen our case study section.”
• “Your report is well-structured and informative. I would suggest revisiting the conclusions section to ensure that it aligns with the data presented earlier. Perhaps adding a summary of key findings before concluding would reinforce the report’s main takeaways.”
• “In reviewing your work, I’m impressed by your analytical skills. I believe using ‘I’ statements could make your argument even stronger, as it would provide a personal perspective that could resonate more with the audience. For example, saying ‘I observed a notable trend…’ instead of ‘There is a notable trend…’ can add a personal touch.”
• “Your project proposal is thought-provoking and innovative. To enhance it further, have you considered asking reflective questions at the end of each section? This could encourage the reader to engage more deeply with the material, fostering a more interactive and thought-provoking dialogue.”
• “I can see the potential in your approach to solving this issue, and I believe with a bit more refinement, it could be very effective. Maybe a bit more focus on the scalability of the solution could highlight its long-term viability, which would be impressive to stakeholders.”
• “I admire the dedication you’ve shown in tackling this challenging project. If you’re open to it, I would be happy to collaborate on some of the more complex aspects, especially the data analysis. Together, we might uncover some additional insights that could enhance our findings.”
• “Your timely submission of the project draft is commendable. To make your work even more impactful, I suggest incorporating recent feedback we received on related projects. This could provide a fresh perspective and potentially uncover aspects we might not have considered.”

Sample Peer Review Phrases: Positive Reinforcement

Offering positive feedback to peers as opposed to constructive criticism is on the easier side when it comes to the feedback spectrum.

There are still questions that linger however, such as: “ How to offer positive feedback professionally? “

To help answer that question and make your life easier when offering positive reinforcements to peers, here are 10 positive peer review examples! Feel free to take any of the peer feedback phrases below and use them in your workplace in the right context!

• “Your ability to distill complex information into easy-to-understand visuals is exceptional. It greatly enhances the clarity of our reports.”
• “Congratulations on surpassing this quarter’s sales targets. Your dedication and strategic approach are truly commendable.”
• “The innovative solution you proposed for our workflow issue was a game-changer. It’s impressive how you think outside the box.”
• “I really appreciate the effort and enthusiasm you bring to our team meetings. It sets a positive tone that encourages everyone.”
• “Your continuous improvement in client engagement has not gone unnoticed. Your approach to understanding and addressing their needs is exemplary.”
• “I’ve noticed significant growth in your project management skills over the past few months. Your ability to keep things on track and communicate effectively is making a big difference.”
• “Thank you for your proactive approach in the recent project. Your foresight in addressing potential issues was key to our success.”
• “Your positive attitude, even when faced with challenges, is inspiring. It helps the team maintain momentum and focus.”
• “Your detailed feedback in the peer review process was incredibly helpful. It’s clear you put a lot of thought into providing meaningful insights.”
• “The way you facilitated the last workshop was outstanding. Your ability to engage and inspire participants sparked some great ideas.”

Peer Review Examples: Feedback Phrases On Skill Development

Peer review examples on talent development are one of the most necessary forms of feedback in the workplace.

Feedback should always serve a purpose. Highlighting areas where a peer can improve their skills is a great use of peer review.

Peers have a unique perspective into each other’s daily life and aspirations and this can quite easily be used to guide each other to fresh avenues of skill development.

So here are 10 peer sample feedback phrases for peers about developing new skillsets at work:

• “Considering your interest in data analysis, I think you’d benefit greatly from the advanced Excel course we have access to. It could really enhance your data visualization skills.”
• “I’ve noticed your enthusiasm for graphic design. Setting a goal to master a new design tool each quarter could significantly expand your creative toolkit.”
• “Your potential in project management is evident. How about we pair you with a senior project manager for a mentorship? It could be a great way to refine your skills.”
• “I came across an online course on persuasive communication that seems like a perfect fit for you. It could really elevate your presentation skills.”
• “Your technical skills are a strong asset to the team. To take it to the next level, how about leading a workshop to share your knowledge? It could be a great way to develop your leadership skills.”
• “I think you have a knack for writing. Why not take on the challenge of contributing to our monthly newsletter? It would be a great way to hone your writing skills.”
• “Your progress in learning the new software has been impressive. Continuing to build on this momentum will make you a go-to expert in our team.”
• “Given your interest in market research, I’d recommend diving into analytics. Understanding data trends could provide valuable insights for our strategy discussions.”
• “You have a good eye for design. Participating in a collaborative project with our design team could offer a deeper understanding and hands-on experience.”
• “Your ability to resolve customer issues is commendable. Enhancing your conflict resolution skills could make you even more effective in these situations.”

Peer Review Phrase Examples: Goals And Achievements

Equally important as peer review and feedback is peer recognition . Being recognized and appreciated by one’s peers at work is one of the best sentiments someone can experience at work.

Peer feedback when it comes to one’s achievements often comes hand in hand with feedback about goals.

One of the best goal-setting techniques is to attach new goals to employee praise . That is why our next 10 peer review phrase examples are all about goals and achievements.

While these peer feedback examples may not directly align with your situation, customizing them according to context is simple enough!

• “Your goal to increase client engagement has been impactful. Reviewing and aligning these goals quarterly could further enhance our outreach efforts.”
• “Setting a goal to reduce project delivery times has been a great initiative. Breaking this down into smaller milestones could provide clearer pathways to success.”
• “Your aim to improve team collaboration is commendable. Identifying specific collaboration tools and practices could make this goal even more attainable.”
• “I’ve noticed your dedication to personal development. Establishing specific learning goals for each quarter could provide a structured path for your growth.”
• “Celebrating your achievement in enhancing our customer satisfaction ratings is important. Let’s set new targets to maintain this positive trajectory.”
• “Your goal to enhance our brand’s social media presence has yielded great results. Next, we could focus on increasing engagement rates to build deeper connections with our audience.”
• “While striving to increase sales is crucial, ensuring we have measurable and realistic targets will help maintain team morale and focus.”
• “Your efforts to improve internal communication are showing results. Setting specific objectives for team meetings and feedback sessions could further this progress.”
• “Achieving certification in your field was a significant milestone. Now, setting a goal to apply this new knowledge in our projects could maximize its impact.”
• “Your initiative to lead community engagement projects has been inspiring. Let’s set benchmarks to track the positive changes and plan our next steps in community involvement.”

Peer Evaluation Examples: Communication Skills

The last area of peer feedback we will be covering in this post today is peer review examples on communication skills.

Since the simple act of delivering peer review or peer feedback depends heavily on one’s communication skills, it goes without saying that this is a crucial area.

Below you will find 10 sample peer evaluation examples that you can apply to your workplace with ease.

Go over each peer review phrase and select the ones that best reflect the feedback you want to offer to your peers!

• “Your ability to articulate complex ideas in simple terms has been a great asset. Continuously refining this skill can enhance our team’s understanding and collaboration.”
• “The strategies you’ve implemented to improve team collaboration have been effective. Encouraging others to share their methods can foster a more collaborative environment.”
• “Navigating the recent conflict with diplomacy and tact was impressive. Your approach could serve as a model for effective conflict resolution within the team.”
• “Your active listening during meetings is commendable. It not only shows respect for colleagues but also ensures that all viewpoints are considered, enhancing our decision-making process.”
• “Your adaptability in adjusting communication styles to different team members is key to our project’s success. This skill is crucial for maintaining effective collaboration across diverse teams.”
• “The leadership you displayed in coordinating the team project was instrumental in its success. Your ability to align everyone’s efforts towards a common goal is a valuable skill.”
• “Your presentation skills have significantly improved, effectively engaging and informing the team. Continued focus on this area can make your communication even more impactful.”
• “Promoting inclusivity in your communication has positively influenced our team’s dynamics. This approach ensures that everyone feels valued and heard.”
• “Your negotiation skills during the last project were key to reaching a consensus. Developing these skills further can enhance your effectiveness in future discussions.”
• “The feedback culture you’re fostering is creating a more dynamic and responsive team environment. Encouraging continuous feedback can lead to ongoing improvements and innovation.”

Best Way To Offer Peer Feedback: Using Feedback Software!

If you are offering feedback to peers or conducting peer review, you need a performance management tool that lets you digitize, streamline, and structure those processes effectively.

To help you do just that let us show you just how you can use the best performance management software for Microsoft Teams , Teamflect, to deliver feedback to peers!

While this particular example approaches peer review in the form of direct feedback, Teamflect can also help implement peer reviews inside performance appraisals for a complete peer evaluation.

Step 1: Head over to Teamflect’s Feedback Module

While Teamflect users can exchange feedback without leaving Microsoft Teams chat with the help of customizable feedback templates, the feedback module itself serves as a hub for all the feedback given and received.

Once inside the feedback module, all you have to do is click the “New Feedback” button to start giving structured and effective feedback to your peers!

Step 2: Select a feedback template

Teamflect has an extensive library of customizable feedback templates. You can either directly pick a template that best fits the topic on which you would like to deliver feedback to your peer or create a custom feedback template specifically for peer evaluations.

Once you’ve chosen your template, you can start giving feedback right then and there!

Optional: 360-Degree Feedback

Why stop with peer review? Include all stakeholders around the performance cycle into the feedback process with one of the most intuitive 360-degree feedback systems out there.

Request feedback about yourself or about someone else from everyone involved in their performance, including managers, direct reports, peers, and external parties.

Optional: Summarize feedback with AI

If you have more feedback on your hands then you can go through, summarize that feedback with the help of Teamflect’s AI assistant!

What Are The Benefits of Implementing Peer Review Systems?

Peer reviews have plenty of benefits to the individuals delivering the peer review, the ones receiving the peer evaluation, as well as the organization itself. So here are the 5 benefits of implementing peer feedback programs organization-wide.

1. Enhanced Learning and Understanding Peer feedback promotes a deeper engagement with the material or project at hand. When individuals know they will be receiving and providing feedback, they have a brand new incentive to engage more thoroughly with the content.

2. Cultivation of Open Communication and Continuous Improvement Establishing a norm where feedback is regularly exchanged fosters an environment of open communication. People become more accustomed to giving and receiving constructive criticism, reducing defensiveness, and fostering a culture where continuous improvement is the norm.

3. Multiple Perspectives Enhance Quality Peer feedback introduces multiple viewpoints, which can significantly enhance the quality of work. Different perspectives can uncover blind spots, introduce new ideas, and challenge existing ones, leading to more refined and well-rounded outcomes.

4. Encouragement of Personal and Professional Development Feedback from peers can play a crucial role in personal and professional growth. It can highlight areas of strength and identify opportunities for development, guiding individuals toward their full potential.

Related Posts:

Written by emre ok.

Emre is a content writer at Teamflect who aims to share fun and unique insight into the world of performance management.

15 Performance Review Competencies to Track in 2024

10 Best Employee Promotion Interview Questions & Answers!

• Belong: Employee Engagement Surveys
• Grow: 360 Feedback & Peer Evaluations
• Customer Stories
• Partnerships
• People Science
• EX Value Calculator
• Masterclasses & Courses
• Reports & Guides
• Events & Webinars
• Strategies & Insights
• HR Impact Community
• Talk to our team

Ten performance review comments examples that managers can use

Performance reviews are a critical component of effective human resource management in the modern workplace. Performance reviews provide an opportunity for managers to assess the performance of their team members, offer feedback, and set goals for the future. The importance of performance reviews cannot be overstated, as they have a direct impact on employee morale and productivity. 

The impact of performance reviews on employee morale and productivity is staggering. According to a recent study, 25% of employees leave organizations due to a lack of recognition. In contrast, employees who feel their voices are heard are 4.6 times more likely to feel empowered to perform their best work. These statistics underscore the critical role that performance reviews play in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors.

Against this backdrop, the purpose of this article is to provide examples of performance review phrases that can help managers to provide feedback that is both constructive and actionable. By offering a sample of employee review comments, this article aims to equip managers with the tools they need to conduct effective team member evaluations that can drive employee engagement and productivity.

Top performance review comments examples

Research shows that the impact of bad performance reviews can be significant, leading to decreased employee morale and productivity. In contrast, good performance reviews can have a positive impact, improving employee performance and retention. Therefore, it is crucial to provide effective performance review comments that are tailored to each employee's unique strengths and weaknesses.

Communication

Effective communication is essential for building strong working relationships, resolving conflicts, and achieving shared goals.

Examples: 

"Your clear and concise communication style has helped to ensure that team members are on the same page and that projects are completed on time."

"Your active listening skills have enabled you to effectively collaborate with colleagues, identify potential issues, and propose viable solutions."

"Your ability to provide constructive feedback respectfully and tactfully has contributed to a positive team dynamic and improved overall performance."

Interpersonal skills

Strong interpersonal skills are critical for developing positive relationships with colleagues, clients, and stakeholders, which can lead to increased collaboration and better outcomes.

"Your friendly and approachable demeanor has helped to foster positive relationships with clients, resulting in increased customer satisfaction and repeat business."

"Your ability to effectively manage conflict has helped to minimize disruptions and maintain a positive team dynamic."

"Your willingness to collaborate with team members and share knowledge and expertise has led to increased productivity and better outcomes."

Leadership ability

Effective leadership can inspire and motivate team members, facilitate decision-making, and drive organizational success.

"Your strong leadership skills have inspired team members to work towards shared goals, resulting in improved performance and better overall outcomes."

"Your ability to delegate tasks and responsibilities effectively has enabled team members to take ownership of their work and contribute to the organization's success."

"Your strategic thinking and decision-making skills have helped to guide the team through challenges and uncertainties, resulting in improved processes and better overall performance."

Problem-solving

The ability to identify and solve problems is essential for overcoming challenges, improving processes, and driving innovation.

"Your ability to identify and analyze problems has led to innovative solutions that have improved processes and resulted in better outcomes for the organization."

"Your willingness to approach challenges with a creative mindset has enabled you to develop unique and effective solutions to complex problems."

"Your ability to collaborate with colleagues and seek feedback has helped to identify potential issues early on and avoid potential roadblocks."

Adaptability

Being adaptable allows employees to remain flexible and responsive to changing circumstances, which is essential in today's rapidly evolving workplace.

"Your willingness to embrace change and adapt to new situations has helped to keep the team agile and responsive to evolving market conditions."

"Your ability to remain calm and focused under pressure has helped to minimize disruptions and keep projects on track."

"Your flexibility and willingness to take on new responsibilities have helped to maximize team performance and contribute to the organization's success."

Employees who take the initiative are proactive and self-motivated, which can lead to increased productivity and better outcomes for the organization.

"Your proactive approach to identifying and pursuing new opportunities has led to increased productivity and improved outcomes for the organization."

"Your self-motivated and results-oriented work ethic has enabled you to take on additional responsibilities and contribute to the team's success."

"Your willingness to go above and beyond your job responsibilities and take on additional projects has led to increased efficiency and better outcomes for the organization."

Work quality

Consistently producing high-quality work is essential for maintaining organizational standards and ensuring customer satisfaction .

"Your attention to detail and commitment to producing high-quality work has contributed to the organization's success and customer satisfaction."

"Your ability to consistently meet or exceed performance standards has led to improved work output and better overall results for the team."

"Your willingness to seek feedback and implement improvements has helped to maintain organizational standards and improve customer satisfaction."

Productivity

Efficiently managing time and resources can lead to increased productivity, improved work output, and better overall performance.

"Your ability to manage your time effectively and prioritize tasks has led to increased productivity and better overall performance."

"Your efficiency in completing tasks and meeting deadlines has contributed to the team's success and improved outcomes for the organization."

"Your willingness to seek out and implement process improvements has led to increased efficiency and better outcomes for the team."

Time management

Effective time management skills can help employees meet deadlines, reduce work-related stress, and improve overall job satisfaction.

"Your efficient use of time and resources has enabled you to meet deadlines and deliver high-quality work while minimizing work-related stress."

"Your proactive approach to time management and task prioritization has contributed to the team's success and improved outcomes for the organization."

Job knowledge

In-depth knowledge of job responsibilities, industry best practices, and relevant regulations is essential for achieving goals, staying competitive, and driving organizational success.

"Your in-depth knowledge of your job responsibilities and industry best practices has enabled you to perform at a high level and contribute to the organization's success."

"Your commitment to staying up-to-date with relevant regulations and changes in the industry has helped to maintain organizational compliance and improve outcomes."

"Your willingness to share your knowledge and expertise with colleagues has contributed to a positive team dynamic and improved overall performance."

A study suggests that employees who receive regular feedback and recognition are more engaged and productive, with a 14.9% lower turnover rate than those who do not receive such feedback.

So it's quite essential to give specific and targeted comments that address each employee's unique strengths and areas for improvement.

Tips for writing influential performance review comments with examples

Writing persuasive performance review comments requires a delicate balance between positive and negative feedback , along with a clear focus on specific behaviors and outcomes. 

Here are some additional tips to consider when crafting feedback that is both constructive and actionable

Balancing positive and negative feedback

It can be tempting to focus on an employee's areas for improvement, but it is crucial to also acknowledge their strengths and accomplishments. This can help to boost morale and motivate employees to continue performing at a high level. 

For example, instead of simply saying: "Your communication skills need improvement", a more balanced approach would be to say, "Your ability to clearly articulate complex ideas is impressive, but there may be opportunities to improve your listening skills in order to fully understand others' perspectives."

Avoiding vague or overly critical comments

Vague comments such as "You need to improve your performance" are not helpful as they do not provide specific areas for improvement. On the other hand, overly critical comments can be demotivating and may not accurately reflect an employee's performance. 

To provide practical feedback, it is important to use specific examples and provide actionable recommendations. 

A more effective comment would be, "There were several errors in the report you submitted, and I recommend taking additional time to proofread before submitting future work."

Providing context for feedback

It is important to provide context for feedback by highlighting specific situations or projects that demonstrate an employee's strengths or areas for improvement. This can help to make feedback more actionable and relevant. 

For example, instead of simply saying, "You need to improve your teamwork skills", a more effective comment would be, "During the XYZ project, your ability to collaborate with team members and communicate effectively was a strength, but there were instances where you could have taken a more proactive approach to seek out feedback and incorporate others' ideas."

Transform your performance review experience with PerformAI

Effective performance reviews are crucial for employee development, productivity, and overall success in the workplace. Poorly conducted reviews can lead to demotivated employees, decreased productivity, and even turnover. 

Therefore, it is important for managers to take the time to provide constructive and personalized feedback to their employees.

PerformAI's allows managers to generate feedback in an instant with the help of AI, ensuring that each employee receives relevant feedback at the right moment. With the ability to edit the feedback generated and receive alerts and notifications, it empowers managers to provide high-quality feedback efficiently and effectively.

What should I write in a performance review comment?

When writing performance review comments, it's important to be specific and provide examples to support your feedback. Focus on the employee's strengths and areas for improvement, and use objective language to avoid sounding overly critical. Be clear and concise in your comments, and offer suggestions for how the employee can continue to grow and develop. Remember to always be respectful and professional in your feedback.

Tags: Performance Reviews , Relationships At Work

Related Articles

Strategies for effective performance management: connection, conversation & coaching.

Topics: Leadership , Performance Management , HR Strategy , Performance Reviews , Managing Organizations , Forecasting

Conducting effective performance reviews

Topics: Performance Reviews , Managing People

Performance feedback methods in the workplace: guide for managers and leaders

Topics: Performance Management , Performance Reviews

Subscribe to Our Blog:

Engagerocket is an employee engagement and performance management platform that helps businesses build engaged teams, empowered managers, and elite organizations. trusted by the top companies in 18 countries and spanning 20 diverse industries—including sephora, toyota, nikon, cgs-cimb, and epson—engagerocket provides continuous listening and real-time analytics to support impactful management action., why engagerocket.

• EngageRocket vs Lattice vs CultureAmp
• EngageRocket vs Qualtrics

Client Portal

• Confidentiality
• Privacy policy
• Terms of service
• GDPR (Data Privacy)

Copyright © 2024   EngageRocket  Pte Ltd. All rights reserved unless otherwise stated.

Minor revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples

‘Minor revisions’ means that a manuscript only has to undergo small changes and improvements before it can be published in an academic journal. If you review a manuscript and struggle to formulate your feedback to reflect a ‘minor revisions’ verdict, look no further: get inspired by explanations, sample comments and examples!

When to decide on ‘minor revisions’

Thus, evaluating a manuscript of someone else and deciding on ‘minor revisions’ requires careful consideration.

As a peer reviewer, you chose ‘minor revisions’ if a manuscript fulfils academic and disciplinary standards, and just needs some small adjustments before being publishable.

If you are in doubt about whether you should go for ‘minor revisions’ or ‘ major revisions ‘, it can be smart to choose the latter. Only opt for ‘minor revisions’ if you are confident that the manuscript authors can implement your requested changes relatively easily.

Common reasons for a ‘minor revisions’ decision

Sample peer review comments for a ‘major revisions’ verdict.

“The manuscript is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published.”

“The authors conduct very relevant research, but fail to emphasise the relevance in their introduction.”

“To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest dividing the analysis into several subsections.”

“The manuscript contains an elaborate literature review, but definitions of the key concepts are needed in the introduction.”

Reviewer comments ‘minor revisions’ example 1

Reviewer comments ‘minor revisions’ example 2

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, major revisions: sample peer review comments and examples, reviewer comments: examples for common peer review decisions, related articles, public speaking in academia and how to practice it, how to peer review an academic paper, introduce yourself in a phd interview (4 simple steps + examples), 24 popular academic phrases to write your abstract (+ real examples).

6 Examples of Positive Performance Review Phrases

Performance appraisals are pivotal practices within every organization; However, it's important to focus on creating a constructive, encouraging, and motivational environment through positive overall performance comments. By understanding performance appraisal strengths examples, managers can better ignite employee engagement and enhance productivity. This article provides a rounded understanding of positive performance reviews with examples and tips to improve performance management practices.

Your company's performance review process doesn't have to be clunky and outdated. Streamline reviews with PerformYard. Learn More

What are Some Sample Positive Performance Review Comments?

The bedrock of effective performance reviews lies in sharing comments that are candid, and constructive, recognizing employee efforts while nurturing their potential. Reflecting on performance review feedback examples and performance review summary examples can guide managers in framing valuable feedback.

1. "John has consistently showcased dedication towards his tasks and has demonstrated excellent project management skills."

2. "Maria's ability to communicate effectively with her colleagues fosters team cohesion, leading to successful project results."

What is an Example of a Good Employee Performance Review?

Giving a comprehensive performance review requires a well-structured approach and an understanding of the context of performance review examples and self-appraisal comments by employee examples.

3. “David has excelled in aligning his tasks to our department's objectives, as demonstrated by the successful completion of Project X ahead of the deadline. His proactivity in seeking solutions reflects his problem-solving skill and self-motivation."

What is an example of a Positive Performance Review for Employees?

Recognizing employee strengths is a proven means to boost morale and engagement. Aiming for greater specificity and acknowledging achievements is essential.

4. “Sarah has shown an impressive ability to balance numerous tasks simultaneously. Her time management skills have significantly improved team productivity and her initiatives brought innovative solutions for workflow processes.”

What is an example of a Positive Performance Review for Managers?

A performance review of a manager should include their leadership, decision-making, and team development strengths, among other facets of their role.

5. “Mark has demonstrated exemplary leadership skills this year, effectively managing his team through numerous challenges. He made sound decisions during our last project, resulting in a 20% increase in efficiency.”

Five Words to Use in Positive Performance Reviews

Using impactful words such as "innovative", "diligent", "focused", "resilient", and "driven" can significantly enhance the effectiveness of positive overall performance comments in enriching a performance review.

How do You Write a Good Comment for an Evaluation?

Effective comments are those that are specific, actionable, and positive, providing clarity and fostering employees' professional development.

6. ”Jane's innovative spirit brought positive outcomes to our project. She could delve deeper into data analysis to solidify her decision-making processes."

A well-structured positive performance review is a powerful tool, not only for documenting past performance but also for fostering future performance. Use the examples and strategies in this article to create more meaningful, positive reviews that truly nurture your team's potential.

Transform your organization's performance management with PerformYard's comprehensive toolkit. Elevate team productivity, streamline goal alignment, and enhance employee engagement through continuous feedback and insightful analytics.

Myth Busting: Is 360 Feedback Outdated?

What Is a Merit Increase and Why Does It Matter?

Fujifilm X-T50 Sample Gallery

The X-T50 is Fujifilm's mid-range mirrorless camera, which trades in some of the X-T5's higher-end features for a film simulation dial. We're still hard at work on our full review, but have put together a gallery of photos taken with our production sample.

Out-of-camera JPEGs will be using Fujifilm's standard 'Provia' profile unless otherwise noted.

Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter/magazine without prior permission ( see our copyright page ). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review); we do so in good faith, so please don't abuse it.

Gear in this story

• Discuss in the forums
• See full product details
• Read our preview
• View sample images

When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

Not keen on the colours, all looks a bit muted to me but i suppose thats what the Sim dial does. Im perfectly happy with standard jpegs from any GFX

The picture of the man feeding the doves has terrible clipped highlights. Seems as if this sensor needs to be conservatively exposed.

It has around 2 stops of highlight recovery in RAW, which is slightly below average. If you're capturing a high dynamic range scene where the highlights are important, you always want to underexpose, but this scene was captured as metered by default.

You can just select HDR200/400 if you prefer one or two stops more highlight retention, while getting proprer metering and proper JPEG exposure

Just looked at that shot in Camera Raw – was easy enough to recover. Was a slightly strange combination of exposure values in the first place, 1/640 sec, f/2.8, ISO 500 i.e. could have worked at a lower iso.

@Steve in Scotland, RawTherapee's raw histogram shows that the raw values are clipped, which includes parts of the skintones. The upper side of the lower right arm is completely clipped and can't be recovered.

Honestly, this is one of the worst digital photos I've seen in a long time.

Blimey, it must be bad. They look like pigeons to me...

Any camera will struggle in such a contrasty scenery, and that particular shot is also overexposed anyway. Should have been underexposed to protect the highlights and then had the RAW shadows lifted.

Great image quality. Sharp, clear, great colors.

yes, just like a smart phone

@Leicalika: I got an iphone 15 promax as a lightweight option when I can't lug my FF kit around. It's good, great even, but I'm here, researching cameras like the XT50, because it isn't nearly good enough for myself, as a photographer.

Leicalike doesnt matter what a phone does i detest using one for photography, use it for work photos with absolute contempt when i have to

I just got an XT30II after a few years of shooting with the Canon RF mount and for me subjectively so image quality is night and day. The colors and tones are mind blowing straight out of the camera and Fuji lenses are just lovely. Every time I transfer my images over to my MacBook I am really just blown away with how Fuji renders a scene. I honestly never felt that way with Canon and that was with $2000 glass attached. But again it's subjective. I feel Fuji really punches wayyyy above its weight class.

But that would be the camera Jpegs right? Fuji is famous for that.

The major reason I switched to Fuji is because of the camera made jpegs. I've even stopped shooting RAW in most cases. I've figured out I like photographing and I dislike postproduction.

The other brand which renders very nice jpegs in camera is Olympus.

I like both brands way of handling colour, but the Fuji camera did meet my other requirements better than Olympus.

Nothing bad about Nikon or Canon in that respect, but lunging around heavy camera's and lenses and a lot of time behind the PC just made me photograph less and less.

Nice work, one of the better galleries I've seen.

It would be a good idea in all future lens galleries to include shots of one place at wide angle and telephoto if it’s a zoom lens, to get a clearer idea of the range (It’s been done before but not always). Also, if it’s a zoom lens, to have a shot at maximum telephoto and largest aperture of a close subject that’s far enough from the background to get a better idea on the bokeh quality (there’s such a shot in this gallery) and the background separation capability of the lens. Also it’s better to do that last test with artificial lighting in the background, like inside a bar or something, I notice artificial light brings out more the weaknesses of a lens.

These are definitely good suggestions, and I'll keep them in mind. One thing worth noting though is that, while a lot of photos in this gallery are shot with the 16-50 F2.8-4.8, it's a gallery for the X-T50 in general, not that lens specifically. But we have shot a gallery for that lens if you're interested! https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3122460596

Thank you! Yes I had forgotten that the gallery concerns the X-T50, not the 16-50, as this type of lens is my ideal walk about glass. So got carried away.

Like this gallery!

Not liking what I'm seeing. Bland comes to my mind.

OK photos, but I feel the photos are missing a little bit sharpness or crispiness. I don't know if this is because of a rather dull lens, in camera processing, DPR processing or maybe a x-trans sensor (if it has that...)

In terms of it being the lens, we shot this gallery with a few different lenses - the Fujifilm 16-50mm kit lens, 33mm f1.4, 35mm f2, and Sigma 56mm f1.4. And if you want to completely rule out DPR Processing, feel free to download the JPEGs and Raws; they're all directly out-of-camera. And yes, the X-T50 has an X-Trans sensor!

You can get tack sharp X-Trans photos if you process with Capture One or RawTherapee. JPEGs are never as sharp (true for any camera brand) and DPReview photos viewed full size in the browser are blown up like 150% somehow, you need to download those.

The point of the gallery isn't so much sharpness as that falls more on the lens, but rather the color renditions, noise performance, dynamic range, among other things relating more to the sensor and the image capture/processing side of things). Yes they could be sharpened more (and probably better) in CaptureOne but that's not really the point of the galleries (at least as far as camera bodies go), so I personally never pay much attention to sharpness when dealing with camera body reviews myself. I figure it's more a lens concern than an issue with the body/sensor and not that relevant for a body review.

I've been a fan of the X-Tx0 series as these cameras offered 80% of the bigger bodies' performance at a reasonable price, while also being quite compact.

However, Fuji has changed the formula with the X-T50. Besides the huge price increase they're marketing it as an 'interchangeable lens X100VI' which it obviously isn't - it's a lower class body with its small EVF, no ISO dial or any WR. 40 mp is an eye-grabbing headline feature which will tip the scales for beginners and casual photographers, and the film simulation dial could also be useful for them.

But the X-T50 isn't very enticing for current X-Tx0 users looking to upgrade. I still want a smaller camera but not at almost the same price as the X-T5 (which is discounted in many countries), and 40 mp or the film sim dials are of no use to me. Not sure if I like the direction Fuji is taking, and the AF issues some users are experiencing are not very reassuring either.

The X-S serie is cheaper and smaller.

Sorry, but what should you do with such photos in this gallery? Very bad... but not the camera

Well this is about the camera picture quality not whether the pictures are pleasing

Complain in the comments section obviously!

Care to share yours?

They are just testing the camera, its not Ansel Adams on a day out. I couldnt care less if they shot brick walls or gates to be honest, thats what i do when i test a camera

I enjoyed the images tbh, nothing wrong with them.

A question from someone who loves photography and does not find any benefit in such galleries. The matter can be deceptive. The camera may be good but the lens used is bad. The camera and lens may be good but the photographer is not. The three may be good but the weather, light and choice of frames are not good. I think that these samples from the galleries will not tell the truth. The camera or the lens may be wrong or vice versa. The subject is related to art and not related to a condition that can be analyzed in the laboratory.

That is true of any gallery, or even the studio scene. They convey limited information to any individual. It is what those gallery producers were able to do within their limitations like time, place, available lens, etc.

The best way for anyone to judge would be to rent one and shoot in typical conditions under which they use their camera, covering similar subjects.

Sometimes we like specific photos in gallery and go into technical details like lens used, aperture, PP done on it, etc. That sometimes gives us enough motivation to try a particular camera or lens, but not a guarantee that we like it. For that reason, I like brief video reviews where photographers talk about how they operate the camera and how easy or difficult it was to get the shot.

Don't look at this as an art gallery. Look at it as a technical tool, as that is what it is.

I don't know how familier you are with the gallary: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries?category=cameras , but it is a fairly easy tool to compare cameras, if you want to buy a new camera, but doesn't have the opportunity to borrow one for yourself.

None of the pictures in here are processed in any way. All are straight out of camera jpegs. If you double-click on one of the pictures above, you get into "detailed view". If you then double-click the picture again, you get a 100% image to view all the finer details (pixel peeping) the camera can deliver.

Look for color rendition, skin smoothening / details, moire pattens, applied sharpening, shadow details and noise.

You can even download a full RAW file, so you can test that up against your own cameras RAW files, to see if your camera is in need of an upgrade.

Sure the pictures all look different, but doens't yours?

My first impression was that I did not see 40MP images. In some, I had to look carefully to find the focus point and then I had to wonder. A couple looked somewhat 40MP appropriate. The first image of the Potter showed considerable ISO noise but at only 1250. I'm not indicting the camera based on these images but I do wonder if 40MP on APS-C has reached a point of diminishing returns and why M43 has languished in 20MP land for years. The 25MP Panasonics are only marginally better but even then, you have to convince yourself they must be better with an extra 5MP. I viewed these images on a 6k Apple XDR display.

I just returned an X-T50 for the reasons you stated plus a few others. I have the high res sensors of Leica and Sony but I am also a long time Olympus MFT user. The noise I was getting in the X-T50 images was more than I expected and image quality was not the jump from MFT that I anticipated. Soft focus was another issue I had. The X-T50 ticked the right boxes on paper for me but reality was much different.

40MP APS-C is worth it but requires good technique and a sharp lens. I was unconvinced also but after seeing how much detail a typicaly superzoom camera can output, there is absolute value to be had in the relatively large pixels of a 40MP APS-C camera.

Comparing the OOC JPEGs with a manual export from Capture One, it looks like the in-camera noise reduction is pretty heavy-handed; it’s killing a lot of the fine details that exist in the raw.

Most of Fuji's lenses can't keep up with the 40MP sensor unless stopped down. Not really a matter of diminishing returns. New lenses are needed to take advantage of the higher resolution sensor. Remember, there are 20MP 1" sensors out there with excellent lenses in front of them, so 40MP in APS-C isn't hitting a limit.

Very nice set of images, from a pure photography point of view.

You may also like

Latest sample galleries

Latest in-depth reviews

With the EOS R1, Canon's flagship EOS-1 line of cameras finally makes the leap to mirrorless technology. Find out how the R1 compares to its predecessors and what new features it offers professional photographers.

Canon has announced the EOS R5 Mark II: a supercharged R5 that borrows many of the innovations from the flagship EOS R1. We take a closer look at what it brings.

Sony has updated its APS-C vlogging camera with a sensor much better suited to 4K and a larger battery.

The Leica D-Lux 8 is a gently updated version of the D-Lux 7, bringing the latest interface and styling cues to match the Q3 and reminding us how much we like a good enthusiast compact.

The Pentax 17 is the first Pentax film camera in two decades. It's built around a half-frame film format and includes design cues inspired by previous Pentax models. Is the experience worth the price of admission? We tested it to find out.

Latest buying guides

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.

This project takes the "toy" part of toy camera seriously.

Halide's new Process Zero mode promises to give you "raw, sensor-data level" without any AI processing.

We break down the camera and photo features of all the new Pixel 9 phones to help you decide which is best for your mobile photography needs.

There are limited edition Instax Mini Evos, a new printer, and a new sweets-themed pattern for the Instax Mini film.

We've shot a gallery with a production X-T50, making heavy use of Fujifilm's latest kit lens.

At today's Made by Google event, the company unveiled its Pixel 9 lineup of smartphones: the Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL and Pixel Pro 9 Fold.

We've rounded up a few new accessories that have just hit the market, including a handful of tripods from Manfrotto and Tilta, along with a limited-time cage from SmallRig.

The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN II Art is a second-generation fast standard zoom lens for E-mount and L-mount cameras. We took it on a trip to Japan and photographed everything from street scenes to nightlife. Check out our sample gallery to see how it performs.

Kodak Alaris, the company that sells photographic film and printing kiosks has been sold to LA-based Kingswood Capital Management.

As part of our ongoing testing of the Canon EOS R5 II, we take a look at the video sampling and rolling shutter rates of the camera's impressive array of shooting modes.

Its 4TB cards aren't even supposed to come out until next year, but the company's already promising the next tier up.

Ricoh has announced the updated G900 II and G900SE II industrial cameras, adding USB webcam capability to its rugged, waterproof worksite and factory-ready compacts.

Blackmagic Design has unveiled a significant update to its popular Blackmagic Camera app for iOS, adding multi-camera monitoring and control, iPad support and other new features.

We've put the EOS R5 II through our studio scene, so we can take a closer look at dynamic range and the role of the electronic shutter. As has been the case with other fast sensors, there's some impact on dynamic range, but only at the extremes.

It's foolhardy to assume you know better than the camera makers when it comes to new models. Despite this, Richard Butler can't help wondering if there's room for a mid-spec, semi-affordable compact that's actually nice to shoot with.

Earlier this year, we met with executives from almost every major camera and lens manufacturer. Find out how these leaders view the state of the camera market and what trends they expect to shape the industry in the coming years.

Calling all photo/video enthusiasts with a knack for sales! DPReview is seeking a dynamic Account Executive to build relationships and drive growth.

In an interview, executives from Canon's imaging division shared insight into the state of the camera industry, touched on the company's plans for 3D imaging, and discussed third-party lens support.

Tamron has announced the 28-300mm F4-7.1 Di III VC VXD, a superzoom lens for full-frame E-mount cameras.

Nikon now has two full-frame mirrorless cameras in the $2000-2500 part of the market. The Zf and Z6III are very different cameras but in other regards quite similar. We take a closer look at what they both offer.

Sigma has announced firmware updates for three lenses: the 50mm F1.4 DG DN, the 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro, and the 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN. These updates enable them to shoot at up to 120fps on the Sony a9 III, with one notable limitation.

We spoke to Masaaki Oshima, head of Sony's Imaging Entertainment business and Masanori Kishi, the head of the Lens Technology and Systems business unit. They had much to say about the changing nature of the market, the role they expect AI to play and the role of global shutter sensors.

In an insightful interview with Tamron, we delve into topics like the state of the camera market, the importance of designing unique lenses, and how Tamron is already leveraging AI technologies to create better lenses.

Yesterday, Ricoh quietly released firmware 2.50 for its Pentax K-1 and K-1 II DSLRs. Astute Pentax users noted that, in addition to general stability improvements, the Japanese release notes also include premium (paid) features designed for astrophotography, which are available only in Japan – at least for now.

As part of our twenty-fifth anniversary, we look back at the most significant cameras from that period. Today it's the turn of the Nikon D850, the green flash as the sun set on the DSLR era.

Our tests show the real-world impact of its lower DR numbers, including how little it'll mean for many people's photography.

Yesterday, we took a look at what the new Canon EOS R5 II has to offer photographers. Today, we're going to take a closer look at what the camera has to offer video shooters an filmmakers.

Canon's EOS R5 II brings a host of new video capabilities, but what does it offer to stills-focused photographers? Do the sparkly new features allow it to outshine the already capable EOS R5?

The EOS R5 II is Canon's newest high-resolution mirrorless camera. Featuring a 45mp Stacked CMOS sensor alongside new capabilities like eye-controlled autofocus, Action Priority modes, and new in-camera processing modes for noise reduction and image upscaling.

The EOS R1 is Canon's newest flagship camera. Check out our pre-production sample gallery from Canon's North American launch event, which includes examples of Canon's new in-camera upscaling and neural network noise reduction.

• Gear Patrol
• Work for us
• Advertise with us
• Feedback / Contact us
• Camera reviews
• Lens reviews
• Printer reviews
• Buying guides
• Sample images
• Editorial enquiries
• Camera search
• Camera comparison
• Lens search
• Product timeline
• Browse all products
• Community Guidelines
• My Settings
• My GearList

Advertisement

Supported by

Here Are the Olympic Moments We Won’t Forget

It doesn’t take a medal to make a lasting memory.

• Share full article

By The New York Times

Success and failure. Exhilaration and agony. Gold, silver and bronze.

The Olympics will always turn on who won and who lost, how high and how fast and how far. But they linger in our minds long after they end for moments that might have little to do with the actual competitions.

Jordan Chiles and Simone Biles came up with the plan. They had both wanted to be on the top step of the medal stand after the final event of the women’s gymnastics competition, the floor exercise. But Biles, the favorite, had made a few mistakes, and Chiles had made a few more, so they instead became bookends to the true headliner: Rebeca Andrade of Brazil. And so a plan was hatched.

After Chiles accepted her bronze medal ( temporarily, it turned out ) and Biles her silver, Andrade was introduced as the Olympic champion. As she approached the podium — completing the first all-Black podium in Olympic gymnastics history — Biles and Chiles turned to Andrade, dropped to one knee and bowed. Afterward, they called her a queen. — JULIET MACUR

More Cowbell

After Bobby Finke won the 1,500-meter freestyle in world-record time — preserving American men’s 120-year streak of winning at least one individual swimming gold at the Olympic Games — the NBC cameras panned to a particularly excited fan. She screamed. She pumped her fists. She clanged her cowbell.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Data, AI, & Machine Learning
• Managing Technology
• Social Responsibility
• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• AI & Machine Learning
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Big ideas Research Projects
• Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy
• Responsible AI
• Future of the Workforce
• Future of Leadership
• All Research Projects
• AI in Action
• Most Popular
• The Truth Behind the Nursing Crisis
• Coaching for the Future-Forward Leader
• Measuring Culture

Our summer 2024 issue highlights ways to better support customers, partners, and employees, while our special report shows how organizations can advance their AI practice.

• Past Issues
• Upcoming Events
• Video Archive
• Me, Myself, and AI
• Three Big Points

Uncover the Ageism Hiding in Your Organization

How can leaders spot biases that affect workers and customers this five-part framework shares ageism audit questions to spark discussion and change..

• Workplace, Teams, & Culture
• Marketing Strategy
• Organizational Behavior

Carolyn Geason-Beissel/MIT SMR | Getty Images

Many companies have yet to tap into the growing “longevity economy” — the economic value of the over-50 population as consumers and workers. Businesses often overlook this demographic even though it holds about 80% of U.S. household wealth and is responsible for half of consumer spending. 1 People who are 50-plus contribute $8.3 trillion annually to the U.S. economy, and that figure is expected to grow to $12.6 trillion by 2030, according to AARP research. 2 At the same time, many people in this group want to continue working beyond the traditional retirement age but find that their job skills are undervalued or disregarded.

Yet, few companies have developed a comprehensive strategy to tap into the potential of this cohort as customers and colleagues. That’s even though U.S. Census Bureau research finds that by 2034 “older adults are expected to outnumber children for the first time in U.S. history.” 3 Ogilvy’s 2030 Forecast declares that while some marketers haven’t awakened to the trend, “ Seniors will become one of the dominant consumer groups , displacing the young as the go-to generation for marketing. Get ready for the silver economy.”

Get Updates on Transformative Leadership

Evidence-based resources that can help you lead your team more effectively, delivered to your inbox monthly.

Please enter a valid email address

Thank you for signing up

Privacy Policy

Behind the missed talent and marketing opportunities lie human costs. As a consulting gerontologist, I’ve interviewed hundreds of people in the 50-plus age group about their life stories, current circumstances, and aspirations. A common theme always emerges: a sense of being gradually edged out of the mainstream. It’s as if the world is no longer designed with them in mind. They encounter ads that ignore, exploit, or mock them; frustrating product packaging; and mandatory retirement policies that don’t consider a person’s desire and capability for the job.

Such sentiments permeate their roles as both consumers and coworkers. Many express a resigned acceptance of this situation, viewing it as an inevitable part of aging. Frequently, it’s not just a mild personal frustration but a real sense of disconnection and marginalization from community and society.

This market disconnect — and its impact on people — is largely due to ageism , a form of bias that has been aptly described as “everywhere and all but invisible.” 4 Ageism promotes stereotypes and biases that paint older adults as unproductive, irrelevant, and out of touch. It’s also widely socially accepted.

About the Author

Matthew Lifschultz is the founder of Age AWARE, a strategic consulting practice, and co-editor of Paths to Leadership in the Senior Living Industry (Springer, 2021).

1. J. Stevens and J.Y. Suh, “ Longevity Economy: From Perceived Burden to Real Opportunity ,” AARP International: The Journal 12 (2019): 62-63; and “ Global Longevity Economy Outlook ,” PDF file (Washington, D.C.: AARP, 2022), www.aarp.org.

2. “Global Longevity Economy Outlook,” www.aarp.org.

3. J. Vespa, D.M. Armstrong, and L. Medina, “ Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060 ,” PDF file (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, revised February 2020), www.census.gov.

4. T. Gendron, “Ageism Unmasked: Exploring Age Bias and How to End It,” (Lebanon, New Hampshire: Steerforth Press, 2022).

5. P. Malani, J. Kullgren, E. Solway, et al., “ Everyday Ageism and Health ,” PDF file (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, July 2020), https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu; and S.W. Golden, “ Work in the Era of No Retirement ,” Harvard Business Review, March 8, 2022, https://hbr.org.

6. C. Collinson and M. Hodin, “ Best Practices for Engaging a Multigenerational Workforce ,” Harvard Business Review, Oct. 17, 2023, https://hbr.org.

7. P. Witschi, A. Bharadwaj, G. Barrios, et al., “ Don’t Overlook Your Mature Consumers ,” Boston Consulting Group, July 11, 2023, www.bcg.com.

More Like This

Add a comment cancel reply.

You must sign in to post a comment. First time here? Sign up for a free account : Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

How to cite ChatGPT

Use discount code STYLEBLOG15 for 15% off APA Style print products with free shipping in the United States.

We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test , and we know our roles in a Turing test . And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT . We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In this post, I discuss situations where students and researchers use ChatGPT to create text and to facilitate their research, not to write the full text of their paper or manuscript. We know instructors have differing opinions about how or even whether students should use ChatGPT, and we’ll be continuing to collect feedback about instructor and student questions. As always, defer to instructor guidelines when writing student papers. For more about guidelines and policies about student and author use of ChatGPT, see the last section of this post.

Quoting or reproducing the text created by ChatGPT in your paper

If you’ve used ChatGPT or other AI tools in your research, describe how you used the tool in your Method section or in a comparable section of your paper. For literature reviews or other types of essays or response or reaction papers, you might describe how you used the tool in your introduction. In your text, provide the prompt you used and then any portion of the relevant text that was generated in response.

Unfortunately, the results of a ChatGPT “chat” are not retrievable by other readers, and although nonretrievable data or quotations in APA Style papers are usually cited as personal communications , with ChatGPT-generated text there is no person communicating. Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is therefore more like sharing an algorithm’s output; thus, credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation.

When prompted with “Is the left brain right brain divide real or a metaphor?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that although the two brain hemispheres are somewhat specialized, “the notation that people can be characterized as ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ is considered to be an oversimplification and a popular myth” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat

You may also put the full text of long responses from ChatGPT in an appendix of your paper or in online supplemental materials, so readers have access to the exact text that was generated. It is particularly important to document the exact text created because ChatGPT will generate a unique response in each chat session, even if given the same prompt. If you create appendices or supplemental materials, remember that each should be called out at least once in the body of your APA Style paper.

When given a follow-up prompt of “What is a more accurate representation?” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “different brain regions work together to support various cognitive processes” and “the functional specialization of different regions can change in response to experience and environmental factors” (OpenAI, 2023; see Appendix A for the full transcript).

Creating a reference to ChatGPT or other AI models and software

The in-text citations and references above are adapted from the reference template for software in Section 10.10 of the Publication Manual (American Psychological Association, 2020, Chapter 10). Although here we focus on ChatGPT, because these guidelines are based on the software template, they can be adapted to note the use of other large language models (e.g., Bard), algorithms, and similar software.

The reference and in-text citations for ChatGPT are formatted as follows:

• Parenthetical citation: (OpenAI, 2023)
• Narrative citation: OpenAI (2023)

Let’s break that reference down and look at the four elements (author, date, title, and source):

Author: The author of the model is OpenAI.

Date: The date is the year of the version you used. Following the template in Section 10.10, you need to include only the year, not the exact date. The version number provides the specific date information a reader might need.

Title: The name of the model is “ChatGPT,” so that serves as the title and is italicized in your reference, as shown in the template. Although OpenAI labels unique iterations (i.e., ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4), they are using “ChatGPT” as the general name of the model, with updates identified with version numbers.

The version number is included after the title in parentheses. The format for the version number in ChatGPT references includes the date because that is how OpenAI is labeling the versions. Different large language models or software might use different version numbering; use the version number in the format the author or publisher provides, which may be a numbering system (e.g., Version 2.0) or other methods.

Bracketed text is used in references for additional descriptions when they are needed to help a reader understand what’s being cited. References for a number of common sources, such as journal articles and books, do not include bracketed descriptions, but things outside of the typical peer-reviewed system often do. In the case of a reference for ChatGPT, provide the descriptor “Large language model” in square brackets. OpenAI describes ChatGPT-4 as a “large multimodal model,” so that description may be provided instead if you are using ChatGPT-4. Later versions and software or models from other companies may need different descriptions, based on how the publishers describe the model. The goal of the bracketed text is to briefly describe the kind of model to your reader.

Source: When the publisher name and the author name are the same, do not repeat the publisher name in the source element of the reference, and move directly to the URL. This is the case for ChatGPT. The URL for ChatGPT is https://chat.openai.com/chat . For other models or products for which you may create a reference, use the URL that links as directly as possible to the source (i.e., the page where you can access the model, not the publisher’s homepage).

Other questions about citing ChatGPT

You may have noticed the confidence with which ChatGPT described the ideas of brain lateralization and how the brain operates, without citing any sources. I asked for a list of sources to support those claims and ChatGPT provided five references—four of which I was able to find online. The fifth does not seem to be a real article; the digital object identifier given for that reference belongs to a different article, and I was not able to find any article with the authors, date, title, and source details that ChatGPT provided. Authors using ChatGPT or similar AI tools for research should consider making this scrutiny of the primary sources a standard process. If the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read those original sources to learn from that research and paraphrase or quote from those articles, as applicable, than to use the model’s interpretation of them.

We’ve also received a number of other questions about ChatGPT. Should students be allowed to use it? What guidelines should instructors create for students using AI? Does using AI-generated text constitute plagiarism? Should authors who use ChatGPT credit ChatGPT or OpenAI in their byline? What are the copyright implications ?

On these questions, researchers, editors, instructors, and others are actively debating and creating parameters and guidelines. Many of you have sent us feedback, and we encourage you to continue to do so in the comments below. We will also study the policies and procedures being established by instructors, publishers, and academic institutions, with a goal of creating guidelines that reflect the many real-world applications of AI-generated text.

For questions about manuscript byline credit, plagiarism, and related ChatGPT and AI topics, the APA Style team is seeking the recommendations of APA Journals editors. APA Style guidelines based on those recommendations will be posted on this blog and on the APA Style site later this year.

Update: APA Journals has published policies on the use of generative AI in scholarly materials .

We, the APA Style team humans, appreciate your patience as we navigate these unique challenges and new ways of thinking about how authors, researchers, and students learn, write, and work with new technologies.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

Related and recent

Comments are disabled due to your privacy settings. To re-enable, please adjust your cookie preferences.

APA Style Monthly

Subscribe to the APA Style Monthly newsletter to get tips, updates, and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

APA Style Guidelines

Browse APA Style writing guidelines by category

• Abbreviations
• Bias-Free Language
• Capitalization
• In-Text Citations
• Italics and Quotation Marks
• Paper Format
• Punctuation
• Research and Publication
• Spelling and Hyphenation
• Tables and Figures

Full index of topics