Cambridge authors offer their opinions on what makes a good peer reviewer.

Author 1: A good peer reviewer should be a person of integral academic standing and an acknowledged expert in the field. At the time of the review process, s/he should not be actively involved in furthering her/his academic career by pending job applications etc. in order to avoid (sub-conscious) self-promotion. – This makes academic retirees potentially good reviewers.

Author 2: Someone who has expert knowledge of the topic/theory covered in the book, who is relatively experienced, who regularly teaches related courses to grad/undergrad students, and who is prepared to read and comment on all the relevant material in detail, and who stands back and takes an overview (rather than scoring points about not liking some analysis of some topic he has worked on), and who is open/fair-minded. Reviewers should come from a selection of the main markets worldwide that the book is aimed at.

Author 3: A good peer reviewer approaches the task not by asking “What would I write?” or “What would my book and goals be?” but instead “What is the author’s goal? What kind of book is s/he trying to write and for what audience?” All comments, then, stem from this perspective.

Author 4: Hopefully the editor has seen enough of the manuscript or proposal to determine that the project is worth reviewing. Alas I’ve had a number of requests where the editor seems simply to have sent something out for review without such pre-clearance: perhaps for good reason, but if it’s immediately clear to me as a reviewer that the manuscript is not up to snuff, particularly for that journal or press, then my first reaction is, why am I looking at this at all?

I suppose there’s no one-size-fits-all definition of a good peer reviewer, but overall, the reviewer should be someone with solid knowledge of the field(s). Also—given that all reading has some underlying bias, lens, or preference—the reviewer—I’ll switch to second person here–you should be willing to accept the author’s terms, at least temporarily, so as to get a solid understanding of what author is trying to accomplish. You don’t have to be neutral, just willing and able to give a fair evaluation.

Never assume the author should be taking the same approach you would to the subject. Maybe your approach is better, maybe not. And maybe it’s just another way of getting from a to b. And maybe, just maybe, the author has done a better job than you would have. So in other words, be humble (though in linguistic terms, that’s a little like saying, Be tall—it’s an imperative that can’t really be carried out).

That initial neutrality, even if you’re just pretending to suspend your disbelief, to see a different point of view, can help you to determine whether the author has achieved their goal. Don’t be afraid to apply your own standards, but recognise too that not everyone in the audience, in the field(s), may have the same expectations.

Author 5: A scholar who priorities the quality of the ideas she is encountering rather than one who is concerned about legitimising her own point of view.

Author 6: A good peer reviewer knows the relevant field, the preexisting research and the leading issues well; and is able to step across often diverse paradigms in the field.  They have concern for positioning the work in the larger issues of the field as well as for the technical details of the work.

Author 7: A good peer reviewer is someone who’s able to see the strengths and weaknesses of a paper/proposal quickly. A good peer reviewer should not get stuck on the details and be able to see the broad contributions (or lack thereof) in a contribution. He/she also is a good communicator and knows how to convey feedback in a constructive and efficient manner. Finally, it is important for a peer reviewer to be timely and recognise when time constraints will not allow him/her to accept a review assignment.

Author 8: A good peer review points to weaknesses of the book to appear without being rude. It helps the author to see what can be done to make the book better, more detailed, easier to read, more coherent, and it makes concrete proposals to these aims. It should also point to the missing topics.

Author 9: First, he/she must be an expert in the field related to the reviewed manuscript (e.g., sociolinguistics); if possible, he/she should also be a specialist in a particular subfield (e.g., lexical borrowings or slang). I’m writing this because I’ve come across reviews that contained rather strange remarks suggesting the reviewer’s astonishing lack of familiarity with the subject matter. Second, he/she should be objective and open-minded: to be able to fairly assess the merits of the manuscript, pointing out not only its drawbacks but also its strengths. This brings me to the third point: he/she should be helpful and encouraging: his/her suggestions should be constructive rather than merely critical, Third, he/she should be detail-oriented: they should point out particular issues in the manuscript that need to be addressed and offer suggestions for improvement.