A selection of Cambridge authors tell us what they like and what they don’t like about peer review reports.

Author 1: Most helpful are comments on concrete issues attached to what is on paper in the manuscript, from spelling errors to formats of quotation to ambivalent expressions; unclear reasoning; missing or faulty references; suggestions for shortening; avoidance of redundancies; necessary/suggested expansion of reasoning; addition of illustrative examples etc., including suggestions of alternative solutions to concrete problems that are dealt with in the manuscript.

Least helpful are comments on alternative approaches/solutions that reflect the reviewer’s own position in general terms.

Author 2: Helpful: information on the background of each reviewer; comparison with rival books; discussion of how the book might fit into courses which you/other colleagues teach (and how well students on those courses would receive it); general comments on the overall structure of the book (e.g. reviewers helpfully suggested breaking up long chapters into shorter sections) and the range of topics covered (e.g. any topics felt to be missing); lists of typos and list of errors in specific analyses; suggested additions to the list of references; suggested additional examples/phenomena; remarks on possibly conflicting intuitions about data.

Unhelpful: Vague generalities, for example ‘there are lots of typos’ (where?); ‘some of the features in trees have errors’ (which?); ‘there are errors in spelling some foreign authors’ names’ (which?).

Author 3: I find an editor’s summary and overall comments about the reports useful. It gives me a sense of whether the editor understands the project and if I’ve done a good job conveying that. The editor can help as a filter for some of the reviewers’ comments.

Author 4: Most helpful is specificity. Rather than sweeping critiques or commendation, very concrete points of strength and weakness are most helpful. Giving citations for literature that may be missing is good. Comments about the structure of the argument that helps to make it more cohesive are always welcome. Generalities without specifics are least helpful.

Author 5: The most helpful in a review report is very detailed advice as to how the manuscript needs to be improved. A good reviewer gives very down-to-earth and practical advice to the author.

The least helpful includes vague suggestions where the reviewer tells the author that something needs to get improved, without giving suggestions as to how the improvement can be carried out. Such vague comments can normally be ignored.

Author 6: A good review appreciates the fundamental place of the manuscript in the field; potentially points to further related research in the field which bears on the argument of the paper; provides both positive support where appropriate and if needed; negative comments where the essential argument of the work does not appear supported; and it raises questions for where further research development would be useful to the argument of the work; in the end, it contributes to the value of the final product.

Author 7: Most helpful: specific recommendations of books and/or articles to read. In other words, rather than “add more to the theoretical framework,” something like “consider incorporating sources like XYZ (2018) and ABC (2020).” Comments around which threads they found interesting that could be highlighted more.

Least helpful: Focus on minor sentence-level issues during an initial review.

Author 8: The most helpful is when the reviewer points out a critical issue in your paper and gives you suggestions about how to address that issue.

Author 9: Most helpful: online reviews, a good system of an editorial manager leading you through the process, adequate questions, word-limits, automatic reminders about the deadline approaching.

Least helpful: open-end reviews, since you don’t know how extensive a review is expected and then, the editor faces reviews of different length and depth.

Author 10: The most helpful is listening to a different point of view and incorporating any constructive remarks which make the manuscript better. The least helpful are the reviewer’s unreasonable demands, especially insistence on changing the manuscript according to his/her vision, as well as his/her overly general or unclear remarks which show he/she doesn’t like the manuscript but fails to offer any specific points or is pretty vague about it.