If you’re about to begin peer reviewing your first book, you need to read these dos and don’ts from a selection of Cambridge authors.

Author 1: Don’t try to show how clever you are! It is the manuscript that is under review, not your own academic potentials.

Author 2: If this is an initial review, ignore typos, mechanics, and specific comments; all those can get fixed at a later date. Focus on content and give the author feedback according to what s/he is attempting to do. And be constructive. Too often scholars think their job is to be critical as opposed to providing feedback that is useful for an author to achieve what s/he wants to do. 

Author 3: Never expect that the author is writing your book. It’s tempting to say, “I would have done this differently, and I won’t be happy unless author accepts all my advice.” Note what the author does well. But also, don’t be afraid to show where the manuscript does not succeed (and make some suggestions for how to make the work more successful, assuming you think that’s possible). Reviewers can be mean—the notorious “Reviewer No.2” is the villain of many Twitter complaints. Try not to be Reviewer No.2. You can reject something without skewering the author.

Author 4: First, look for all the positive aspects of the text and point them out; then look for aspects that could be improved. Do not impose a complete rewrite of certain sections, if at all possible. Never impose your personal preferences, on the content or the style. Remember that the book proposal has already been accepted so changes requested should be minor.

Author 5: Consider the work both for quality of its technical and scientific evidence and its knowledge of the pre-existing research in the field, as well as for its uniqueness and potential importance for essential issues in the general field.  Rigorously avoid all ad hominem comments. Both positive and negative comments/decisions must be justified as precisely as possible, with use of examples as evidence.

Author 6: My advice would be to read generously and critically, and to focus on big-picture issues during the initial review (the argument, the organization, the kinds of sources, etc.). Sometimes there can be a tendency to be too lax or too critical, and both extremes can be detrimental to authors. Try to review in such a way that the author will be excited and motivated to start revising the work and making it substantially better.

Author 7: One should be critical, and if the paper deserves rejection, then so be it. What matters is not the final decision though, but the way this decision is justified. Just as much as an author should give its paper all possible attention before sending it for publication, I think a reviewer should give the review all possible care. This is difficult because of time pressure, of course. But one should make sure that each comment they write is constructive enough that the author can benefit from the review (even in the case of a rejection).

Reviewers make mistakes too, and it is not their goal – nor their right – to just humiliate the author. Effort should therefore be made to ensure that each comment, even when they relate to very critical issues, is written in a way that helps the author. (And I believe it should also be the editor’s job to check that this is the case.

Author 8: Try to understand the manuscript not only from your viewpoint (which may be very narrow and represent a particular subfield of linguistics) but also from the broader perspective (although, naturally, this depends on the nature of the manuscript and its intended readership); focus on assessing all the pros and cons of the manuscript in a clear and structured way; respect the author’s vision: understand that every author is entitled to their idea of the manuscript which may not be compatible with the vision of the reviewer; finally, always keep your deadlines.