Original The manuscript by Smith et al. has several flaws in the logic of the experiments… Revised options I did not understand the logic of the experiments… The manuscript by Smith et al. seems to have several flaws in the logic of the experiments… Be punctual Read the title and abstract as soon as you receive a new manuscript to review. Reviews are expected to be completed within 10 days. If you cannot review the paper due to a conflict of interest or lack of expertise, notify the Associate Editor promptly so will be unavailable to handle new manuscripts due to other commitments, enter unavailability dates into your online profile so that JLR doesn’t bother you with new requests. If your first glance at the title and abstract suggest that the work is highly unlikely to provide the kind of conceptual or methodological advance expected atJLR, please find time to read the paper in full within 48 hours; if your initial concerns hold true for the full manuscript, you can return a brief report focusing on the major flaws rather than enumerating all relevant technical concerns. Be specific Just like the manuscript you’re evaluating, your review should not contain unsupported assertions. Explain positive or negative feedback with specific details. Consider these examples, that lack such detail: A large portion of this work, on the related protein from the rat, has already been published elsewhere. Appropriate controls are not included. The manuscript by Smith et al. has several flaws in the logic of the experiments. This is great. raised: Include details of relevant references. What controls are missing? What are the flaws in the experimental design? These details will help the editors or authors determine whether (or how) your concerns can be resolved through revision. Even when you are being complimentary, as in the last case, the editor will not know what you think is important or impactful about this study. This could result in more weight being placed on the report of a negative referee and rejection of an exciting study. These examples serve as a more specific and useful framework: I am concerned that citations X, Y and Z limit the conceptual advance of this study. I did not see controls testing for non-specific aggregation in Figure 2; this should be ruled out. Writing reviews with rigor and respect: a practical guide As a JLR referee, you uphold the journal’s high standards for rigorous and timely, yet fair and collegial, peer review.The editors at JLR rely on reviewers’ thorough assessments to ensure that all of the papers published in the journal will stand the test of time. Thoughtful manuscript assessments help authors come away from the review process with constructive feedback, even if the paper is not accepted. Scientists who have been through the review process as authors know in principle what kind of information is most helpful and what common traps can derail a productive review. This guide builds from real referee comments to provide practical examples of how to communicate the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript to both editors and authors without falling into these traps. Rules of review Be respectful Whether your assessment of a manuscript is favorable or not, this has no place at JLR. Keep in mind how you would like to be treated if the situation was reversed. Insults such as the ‘inappropriate’ examples below do not advance the review process, and actually may limit the impact of your input since they raise questions about your objectivity. The underlying concerns maybe valid, but need to be expressed appropriately, as in the revised examples. Inappropriate This is the worst manuscript I have read in years. This paper is based on totally incorrect assumptions and consequently all of the conclusions are irrelevant. It is as far from biological reality as one can get. The authors seem to have only a rudimentary understanding of statistics. Appropriate I am not convinced this manuscript makes a strong contribution to the literature. The manuscript does not seem to account for important conceptual advances such as... I am concerned about the physiological relevance of these results. The statistical tests applied are not appropriate for the experimental design. You can also set a productive tone for the review by explaining your experience reading the paper, rather than making pro- nouncements, as shown in the following examples. This leaves the door open for scientific exchange, which is especially useful if an aspect of the manuscript was simply poorly described or in the rare case where you genuinely missed or misunderstood something. www.jlr.org