At some point in your career, the invitation arrives.

“Dear Dr. X, I would be grateful if you could review a manuscript submitted for consideration…”

You pause.

It’s flattering. It’s validating.

It also feels like a test you never studied for.

What if I’m not qualified enough? What if I miss something important? What if I say yes… and regret it?

These are not just nerves. These are the early signs of taking your academic citizenship seriously.

So let’s answer the two questions every thoughtful scholar asks when that email comes in:

1. Should I say yes to peer review?

2. If I do, how do I do it well—fairly, constructively, and without losing a weekend?

Let’s start at the beginning.

Should I Say Yes to Peer Reviewing?

1. Don’t say yes to everything

I learned this the hard way. One year, I said yes to every review that came my way—5 in a month, not a year. The quality of my feedback plummeted. I became critical without being helpful, rushed instead of reflective.

Now? I limit myself to 5 reviews per year. That’s my sustainable bandwidth to contribute thoughtfully, without shortchanging the authors—or myself.

You can set your own number: 2, 3, maybe just 1. Quality beats quantity every time.

Peer review is a service. But it’s also labor. Don’t overcommit.

2. Avoid predatory journals—reviewing is not neutral

In my early days, I accepted an editorial invitation from a journal I now know was predatory.

They had a sleek website. Claimed to be international. Promised “fast-track publication.” It sounded legitimate—until I noticed the vague peer review process, unreasonable publication fees, and relentless spam.

Lesson learned: when you say yes to a review, you’re lending your credibility to the journal. Choose carefully.

Make sure they are not in the predatory journal list. And listed in PubMed or Embase. Look at the editorial board. If something feels off—it probably is.

3. You don’t need to be an expert in every aspect of the paper

But you do need some domain familiarity.

Let’s say your expertise is in inflammatory biomarkers, and you get a paper that blends immunology and psychiatry. Maybe you can review the lab methods and statistical rigor—but not the psychiatric diagnoses.

That’s fine. Tell the editor up front. Editors are grateful for honesty—they can either assign another reviewer to complement you or find someone else entirely.

Your job isn’t to know everything. It’s to clearly state what you do know—and evaluate that part well.

4. Say yes when it aligns with your expertise and your goals

Start with journals you read and respect. Topics that sit near your wheelhouse. Papers that reflect the kind of research you want to write.

Because reviewing is one of the best ways to learn how good papers are structured—and how flawed ones fall apart.

It trains your scientific eye. It sharpens your writing instincts. It gives you insider knowledge of what editors want.

Think of it not just as a favor to the field—but as an investment in your own growth.

5. Watch for conflicts of interest—real or perceived

If you’ve collaborated with one of the authors recently, mentored them, or share an institutional affiliation, disclose it. If you’re working on a project that overlaps with or competes with theirs—hit pause.

Even if you believe you can be objective, the perception of bias matters.

When in doubt, send a note to the editor and let them decide.

— Bottom line —

Say yes to peer review when:

• You have enough time to do it justice
• You’re reasonably familiar with the topic
• You trust the journal
• You can offer feedback that’s fair and constructive

Don’t say yes just to please.

Say yes when you’re ready to contribute something real.

And always remember—you’re allowed to say no.

Even better? You’re allowed to say: “Not yet.”

Now, let’s talk about the part no one teaches:

How do you actually write a good peer review?

Most of us learn by guessing.

Or worse—by mimicking rejection letters we hated.

But reviewing isn’t about sounding smart. It’s about being helpful.

Here’s a six-step approach to doing it well—one I wish I had when I wrote my first review.

How to Review Well (Without Losing Your Mind or Your Weekend)

1. Start With the Big Picture

Don’t open a PDF and start circling grammar mistakes.

Instead, print it out (or read it on your tablet distraction-free), and just… read.

No pen. No comments. Just let the narrative hit you.

Then ask:

• Why was this study done?
• What’s the key takeaway?
• Are the methods broadly appropriate?
• What kind of impact would this paper have if published?

Only after that should you read it again—with a pencil, highlighting inconsistencies, noting places where claims feel unsupported, and identifying areas that genuinely add value.

You’re not a copyeditor. You’re a sounding board.

You’re helping the editor make a decision—and helping the authors improve their work.

2. Write Separately to the Editor and to the Authors

These serve different purposes, so they deserve different tones.

To the editor: Offer your global assessment. Is this paper novel? Is the methodology sound? Does it move the field forward? Are there ethical concerns?

This is where you give your bottom line recommendation: accept, revise, or reject—and why.

To the authors: Focus on clarity, specificity, and actionability. Don’t just say “the methods are weak”—explain what’s missing. Don’t say “rewrite the introduction”—suggest what it needs.

Think of it like writing margin notes to a colleague. You want to help them see what you see—without tearing them down.

3. Keep Your Tone Neutral and Generous

Sarcasm is a red flag. Condescension closes ears.

Instead of: “This analysis is fatally flawed,”

Try: “There are methodological issues that may limit the interpretability of the results.”

You can be critical. But you don’t need to be cutting.

A review isn’t a performance. It’s a conversation—with stakes.

Remember, someone spent months on this work. Treat it with care.

4. Structure Your Comments Logically

Don’t dump a wall of text.

Organize your review from macro to micro:

• General comments
• Title and abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Figures/tables

Number your points. Use bullet points where needed. Be clear and easy to follow.

Structured reviews are easier to digest—and more likely to be acted on.

5. Raise Ethical Concerns Thoughtfully

If you suspect plagiarism, image duplication, fabricated data, or undeclared conflicts—don’t sound the alarm in your comments to the authors.

Instead, flag it privately to the editor:

“This submission includes text that closely mirrors content from a previous publication. May warrant further scrutiny.”

You’re not the ethics committee. Just be vigilant, calm, and discrete.

6. Be Honest About What Can—and Can’t—Be Fixed

If a paper has promise but needs clarification or more data, recommend major revision.

If it’s fundamentally flawed—wrong population, invalid methods, unsupported conclusions—recommend rejection. And explain why.

This isn’t cruelty. This is clarity. You’re not judging the researcher. You’re evaluating a submission.

Editors depend on that judgment to maintain standards.

You don’t have to be a senior PI to write a great review.

You don’t need to have NIH grants or 50 publications.

What you need is clarity, thoughtfulness, and a commitment to fairness.

When done well, peer review isn’t just a gatekeeping task.

It’s mentorship.

And someone’s career might depend on how you show up.

So read generously.

Write clearly.

Review with integrity.

Because how you review—like how you research—reflects who you are.