Reviewing scientific manuscripts - continued

Organisation and Presentation
Has the author followed the Instructions to authors of the journal?

Is the basic structure of the manuscript sound and logical, for example, in the generally applicable sequence of Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Acknowledgements, References, Index (if applicable)?

Is the title appropriate and concise?

Are the keywords well chosen and do they include words from the title?

Does the abstract present the gist of the article in a precise manner?

Are the tables relevant, clear, and logically designed, with adequate captions?

Are the illustrations relevant, suitable for publication, and provided with adequate captions?

Are the references in the text and under the heading References cited correctly?

Style and Language
Is the writing clear, logical, and arranged in logical sequence? (If not, propose modifications.)

Is the writing concise? (If it should be condensed—for example, by eliminating repetition, using abbreviations, using shorter words—propose general or specific alterations.)

Does the language (grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling) need attention?

Discussion of Some Points on the Checklist
Does the manuscript deal with a subject area covered by the scope of the journal? This issue is normally decided by the editor, but you may wish to comment and/or suggest a different journal or another (for example, electronic) medium in which the manuscript could be made generally accessible.

Is the manuscript scientifically sound and up-to-date? This highly important question summarises most of the questions listed under Scientific Soundness above. You may be so familiar with the subject that you take it for granted that other people know it as well as you. Most likely this is not the case. You may be the best person in the world to judge the issue. Deal with it in this light.

Are the materials used appropriate; do the vouchers constitute a representative sample and are they adequately cited? Here is a question that I consider to be of special importance. Remember, most scientific papers must be presented in such a way that the research on which they are based can be repeated and the results tested or falsified (shown to be inaccurate or wrong). And there are few botanical studies that can be undertaken without the use of specimens: in taxonomy it is taken for granted, but studies in anatomy, cytology, DNA sequencing, and similar fields are not always supported by adequate vouchers. Some years ago a completed Ph.D. thesis was totally rejected because the author could not give positive proof of the identity of the plant material that had been analysed. In many studies a single voucher may not be sufficient to convince you that the author has studied a representative sample. A minimum of two specimens should be cited in most instances.

Reviewing for Starters
1 Study the questionnaire and any other documents you may have received from the editor together with the manuscript. It will focus your attention on aspects the editor would like you to assess.

2 Familiarise yourself with the Instructions to authors of the journal concerned.

3 Read through the manuscript in order to gain an overall impression. As you go along, make brief notes on points you should come back to, but don’t get lost in detail at this stage. If you are dealing with a long paper such as a monograph or flora account, you will most probably not have to study the entire work before you can give a reasoned opinion on its intrinsic merits. If it is expected from you to scrutinise every detail of such a long manuscript, the editor should ask for it specifically.

4 You are now in a position to decide whether the manuscript is basically suitable for the journal in question. If you decide that it is not, even after major modifications, then all you have to do is to inform the editor of your decision, giving your reasons, and to return the manuscript, if so requested, or to destroy it.

5 Now it is time to go through the manuscript in great detail. Before you make any annotations or corrections on the hard copy remember that the editor usually does not want the author to know who reviewed the work, and that the author may recognise your handwriting. But the editor will probably want to bring all or most of your annotations and comments to the attention of the author. The recommended procedure is therefore usually the following: Mark the line in the manuscript that you want to correct or to comment on in the left-hand margin with a number. Then type your comments on a separate sheet in a paragraph marked with the same number. Preferably you should mark your comments in numerical sequence from your first comment onward. The editor may have provided you with an appropriately marked sheet onto which you can type your comments. If you make any handwritten notes on the hard copy, these should be done lightly in pencil which can be rubbed out by the editorial staff before sending it to the author. Any comments or observations meant only for the eyes of the editor should obviously be made separately from those also meant for the author.

6 When you annotate and correct the manuscript in electronic form, it is recommended that you mark all your deletions in red and your additions in blue or green.