How do you balance constructive criticism and encouragement in a peer review report?

This is reasonable advice for journals that are continuing to ask reviewers to judge the importance of the work but many good journals no longer do this and instead only ask for a review that judges the validity and soundness of the manuscripts scientific content. This leaves the job of deciding whether a paper is suitable for a given journal with the editorial team, which is a fairer and more efficient delegation of responsibilities.

✓Understand the purpose and scope of the peer review. ✓Align your feedback with the objectives, whether it's to improve the manuscript, ensure quality, or contribute to the author's development.

Understanding the purpose and scope of a peer review is paramount in delivering effective feedback. Before diving into critique, take a moment to grasp the objectives of the review process and the specific boundaries within which feedback should be offered. Knowing the purpose ensures that your comments align with the goals of the review, while understanding the scope helps maintain focus, ensuring your feedback is relevant and actionable. This clarity enhances the constructive nature of your criticism and encourages a more fruitful exchange of ideas among peers.

Understanding the specific goals of the journal or conference is very important. Academic journals might emphasize advancing theory and knowledge, but industry conferences always focus on practical applications and case studies which will connect to real life situations. So you need to understand this before starting your peer review.

Balance constructive criticism with encouragement by clearly outlining areas for improvement while also highlighting strengths. Provide specific, actionable feedback and express appreciation for the effort and progress made.

Balance constructive criticism and encouragement by framing feedback around growth. Start with positive aspects, highlight specific areas for improvement, and offer actionable suggestions. Finish with encouraging words to motivate and reinforce their strengths, ensuring the review feels supportive and not overly critical.

In my experience, when providing peer review feedback for health research, it's essential to strike a balance between offering constructive criticism and providing encouragement.Start with positive feedback, be specific and respectful in your critiques, provide rationale for suggested improvements, offer encouragement and support, and end on a positive note. This approach fosters a collaborative and supportive research environment while helping authors improve their work.

Balancing constructive criticism and encouragement in a peer review report involves highlighting strengths while providing specific, actionable feedback on areas needing improvement. For instance, as a tutor, I once reviewed a student's essay that had strong arguments but lacked clear structure. I praised their insightful analysis, saying, "Your arguments are compelling and well-supported," before suggesting, "To enhance clarity, consider organizing your points with clear subheadings." This approach maintained their confidence while guiding them to improve, ensuring they felt motivated and equipped to enhance their work.

In my opinion, effective peer review necessitates a delicate balance between constructive criticism and encouragement. I once encountered a manuscript that presented innovative ideas but lacked clarity. Instead of dismissing it, my review highlighted specific areas for improvement, suggesting that refining hypotheses and providing clearer examples would enhance the impact of the manuscript. Such targeted, evidence-based feedback ensures authors grasp both strengths and weaknesses, fostering growth.

I agree with the sentiment of this comment that is to avoid vague statements and to require objective justification for criticisms. However, the example given that “grammatical mistakes on pages… “ is better than the sweeping and unjustified “poorly written” raises another issue. You’re not there to proof read the paper, you’re there to provide a scientific assessment and you should focus on that. If the paper is difficult to read to the point that you can’t make sense of it then that needs to be highlighted, but otherwise comments about style, grammar and spelling in my view should be minimal from a reviewer other than to recommend a proof reading service.

Being specific and evidence-based in your feedback is essential for providing meaningful insights during peer review. Rather than vague generalizations, pinpoint precise areas for improvement and support your observations with concrete evidence from the work itself. This approach lends credibility to your critique and enables the recipient to clearly understand the basis for your suggestions, facilitating targeted revisions and growth.

Definitely agree. Also, criticism can be given constructively. Rather than “This is rubbish”, can you say “The authors’ conclusion that X isn’t supported by experiment Y, but it does show that…” and then suggest what would need to be done if they did want to test the original hypothesis.

✓Balance your feedback by acknowledging the strengths and positive aspects of the work alongside areas for improvement. ✓This ensures a comprehensive and fair assessment.

Highlighting both positives and negatives in your peer review feedback is crucial for providing a balanced perspective. Acknowledge the strengths and successes of the work, offering praise for accomplishments and effective elements. Simultaneously, address areas for improvement or concerns constructively, focusing on actionable steps to enhance the overall quality. This balanced approach fosters a supportive environment for growth and development, encouraging the recipient to build upon their strengths while addressing weaknesses.

Be clear and specific while also acknowledging related elements already in the manuscript. This way, the team working on the revisions can build upon the existing elements and not reconstruct the whole piece if necessary. Clarifying the observable elements that need improvement while acknowledging related parts that add to the strength of the writing/concept/framework/data is key.

Good advice. I would go further and add that any rude, aggressive or sarcastic language is completely unacceptable and only serves to show a lack of professionalism and competence on the reviewers part. If you find yourself wanting to do this, go and deal with your anger and then come back to the review. If you can’t do that then just decline to complete the review. Editors should refuse reviews that are written like this.

Using polite and constructive language in your peer review is paramount for fostering a positive and productive exchange. Approach your feedback with kindness and empathy, being mindful of how your words may impact the recipient. Choose language that is respectful and considerate, focusing on constructive criticism rather than harsh judgment. This approach cultivates a supportive atmosphere conducive to growth and collaboration, ultimately benefiting both the individual and the quality of the work.

Leading by example is always the best way. Show the authors specific examples of changes you suggested. Tell them precisely how the changes could improve the manuscript: enhanced clarity, detailed examples, adequacy to the audience’s perceived level of expertise. This last one is especially relevant if the paper is under review in one of the generalist journals (ie, Nature) rather than a specialized one(ie, Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery).

The word criticism itself a negative word which directs a reviewer towards to point out the negatives either if any are there or not Using polite and constructive language is a good idea even though the researcher gets heart feeling. My opinion is to mention if any of disagreement with the research, I would start with "I understand this point as ...." "In my opinion this point be examined/evaluated...." Opinion and understanding mentioned in your lines must be supported with strong relevant evidences. If you don't have enough relevant evidences, you don't need to give comments on that specific part/section in your review report.

✓Structure your feedback in a clear and organized manner. ✓Use headings or sections to address specific aspects such as methodology, results, or writing style. ✓This helps authors navigate and understand your comments.

Yes. Also, if you are able to annotate a copy of the document directly then this can be a valuable addition to the reviewers report.

Organizing your peer review report clearly enhances its effectiveness. Structure your feedback logically, starting with an introduction that outlines the purpose and scope of your review. Then, divide your evaluation into distinct sections, such as strengths, areas for improvement, and recommendations. Use headings, bullet points, or numbering to delineate each point clearly, making it easy for the recipient to follow your feedback. A well-organized report streamlines communication, facilitating better understanding and implementation of your suggestions.

✓Review your report for clarity, coherence, and accuracy. ✓ Ensure your feedback is concise and free from ambiguities. ✓A well-proofread report enhances the professionalism of your critique.

Before submitting your peer review report, take the time to revise and proofread it carefully. Review your feedback for clarity, coherence, and consistency, ensuring that your points are expressed clearly and concisely. Check for grammatical errors, typos, and formatting issues, as these can detract from the professionalism of your report. Additionally, revisit your feedback to confirm that it aligns with the purpose and scope of the review, and that your language remains polite and constructive throughout. Revise as needed to ensure your report is polished and ready for submission, demonstrating your commitment to providing valuable and well-crafted feedback.

Empathize: If this were your paper, what feedback would you value? Highlight a significant contribution in your peer-review report, reiterating if necessary. Maintain kindness and integrity.

Reviewers should decline to review a paper if they feel thay they don't have the required expertise to properly evaluate a paper. An invitation to review a paper does not mean that you must accept it. Be honest and humble are very important qualities when it is come to review a paper.

After what Francky said, I add that it is important that invitations to review a scientific article should not seen as an obligation in the sense that if you have any conflict of interest, you should decline.