How to perform a peer review? Give a Step by step procedure for new researchers in reviewing the manuscript


  • PhD Manuscript Pre-Submission Peer Review allows the students writing to clarify their ideas in the content.
  • PhD peer reviewing services exists to validate academic work and helps to increases networking possibilities within research communities by improving the quality of published research.
  • Making the writing process collaborative through peer review helps students to gain experience to learn from one side and to think carefully about the research writing.


Peer review is the process that involves various aspects in the manuscript that deem the necessary element for publication. The PhD peer-review process ensures the manuscript is easy to comprehend, do not have any gaps. Manuscript Writing Help determines the reliability and validity of research findings. The reviewer should check for scientific merits its methods and research misconduct.

The overview of the report format

The structuring of the report varies based on the journal. Some follow the informal structure, while others have a formal approach. PhD Manuscript Peer Review Process carried out based on the journal submission guidelines and the requirements of the researchers.

Informal Structure:

Most of the journals do not provide strict criteria for submission. In this case, you have a look at the other articles published in the journal to get an idea of structuring. So, you should gain some knowledge about structuring to rely on your evolving style or get help from PhD Manuscript Peer Reviewing experts to have a quality document.

Formal Structure:

Other journals require a formal approach and follow strict submission guidelines. It is an important stage when there is a presence of submission guidelines because they will ask you to address a specific format to research questions. Often you cant see this submission guideline. You need to go on your own to check the submission guidelines. So when you want to submit your paper to the specific journal, there are formal guidelines, and that directs the structure of your review.

The First Read-Through

The first read-through is the skim read which will help you to form an initial impression of the paper and get the sense of what is an eventual recommendation made in the paper that decides the acceptance or rejection. Professional Pre-Submission Peer Review Help you to work with the rejected document and gain strength to paper for publication.

What are the considerations in the first read?

  • Peer Review Service for Manuscripts check for the central question addressed in writing is relevant to the study and interesting.
  • Peer review of the thesis is to evaluate the topic novelty and check for what it does add to the subject area compared with other published material.
  • Check for the clarity in the content delivered.
  • Check whether the conclusions consist of evidence and argument from standard articles and also check for the relevance.
  • Do this paper include tables, figures and to check whether they add significance to the paper.

Spotting potential major flaws:

It was all about spotting the major flaws that decrease the quality of the document. Check for mistakes in the methodology part, which is the main part of the whole writing. Check for the information gathered whether this information provides enough knowledge to the readers. Manuscript Peer Review a Guide check if there is a presence of a critical flaw in the manuscript and help yo correct it on the early stage, flaws such as,

  • Insufficient data
  • Statistically non-significant variants
  • Unclear data tables and structures
  • Data that disagree with your conclusion
  • Including data that adds arguments little weak

Concluding the first reading:

After completing the initial reads, consider all those major flaws you found. Write a rough draft of paragraph you came to known from evaluating the paper make the rough draft as two paragraphs. First summarises the research question, second address the contribution of work. It will be helpful if the journal has prescribed the report format. It helps to draft to compose your thoughts. After reviewing the manuscript, you have to decide whether the manuscript is seriously flawed or it is publishable.

Rejection after the first reading:

If you come to an opinion that the article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole content. It is mandatory because you may find some positive aspect that communicated with other authors. That could help you with future submission.

To save time and review:

  • While writing does not rely on uninteresting comment on the manuscript document
  • Try to the group based on the requirement
  • Check whether the line number text upon, this will help you define items again and also aids your review
  • Do keep images, graph and tables in a clear view while writing itself. It will help you evaluate easily

Carry out the second review

Check the Language:

One of the reasons for the rejection of the Manuscript by the Journal is a language issue. Not every submission is well written in the right format. If the article is difficult to understand, you should work with the document. However, if the language is poor but the central message is delivered well see if you can improve the document and fix the problem immediately.

Go through section by section:

Check whether the cited article is central to the author’s argument. It will help you to find errors from different areas than before. There is a need to check to reference for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

How to Structure Your Report:

If you are writing a formal report, remember to follow the guidelines. It will always comprise of a range of questions followed by comments. If you’re following an informal report format, you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.


PhD Manuscript Writing Peer review provides a professional experience for students writing. Peer review is needed to minimize last-minute drafting and to cut down common lower-level writing errors.


  • Howe, M. J. (1982). Peer reviewing: Improve or be rejected. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 218-219.
  • Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioural and brain sciences, 14(1), 119-135.
  • Seals, D. R., & Tanaka, H. (2000). Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education, 23(1), S52-58.

Leave a Reply

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