Publishing journal articles in economics can be slow and challenging, and effective peer review plays a critical role in shaping the efficiency and fairness of the process. Despite its importance, many researchers receive little guidance on how to be a constructive peer reviewer. In this article, I provide advice on how to approach peer review thoughtfully and professionally, with the goal of improving the experience for both authors and reviewers. 

Initial considerations before accepting a peer-review assignment
Before accepting a peer-review assignment, consider whether you are a good match to review the submitted manuscript. Do you know the journal and the kinds of articles it usually publishes? Are you familiar with the literature and methods of the paper? Can you complete the review by the assigned deadline, or do you need to request additional time? It's also essential to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with the author, that could impact your objectivity. If you must decline the invitation, it is always helpful to suggest colleagues who would be a better fit.

Evaluating the paper: Key aspects
Your job as a reviewer is to provide a clear and decisive recommendation to the editor. To do this, start by evaluating whether the paper aligns with the journal’s aims and scope. Assess the paper’s contribution and whether it is sufficiently important to merit publication in that particular outlet. Since journal standards vary widely, it’s essential to understand the guidelines of the one you're reviewing for.

Next, examine the content of the paper itself. Does it have a clear conceptual framework and development of hypotheses? Gauge whether the data is described in enough depth and if the empirical specification is appropriate, current, and well-grounded in prior literature. Are there additional robustness checks that should be done to make the analysis more convincing? You should also determine whether the writing requires substantive revision to improve clarity and coherence. Editors often suggest professional proofreaders to help refine language and style, and you may want to suggest that option too.

Be specific
Recommending a “revise and resubmit” implicitly conveys to the editor that the paper makes a meaningful contribution, but it is not publishable in its current form. However, with successful revisions, it may be acceptable for publication. In this regard, your comments should provide the authors with a well-defined path for meeting that standard.

If you suspect the paper's results are incorrect, then you should provide specific, objective reasons for your concerns instead of communicating general skepticism. Vague comments are less helpful for the author and will leave them guessing on how to address your feedback. For example, instead of simply noting that the paper has a problem with censored data, it would be more constructive to suggest trying a Tobit model. For more complex issues, offering additional references or methods can help guide the author towards a solution.

Focus on the main goal: Improve the paper
Your criticisms should always be constructive, even when recommending rejection. In such cases, it is a good idea to highlight one or two strengths of the manuscript and offer a few sincere suggestions for how the authors can overcome the paper’s shortcomings.

It is not your job as a reviewer to tear the paper apart or impress the editor with your own knowledge. Your goal is to put forth a genuine effort to help the authors improve their paper. Think carefully about whether your comments will strengthen the analysis, or merely “make work” for the authors.

Recognize and avoid bias
In economics, double-blind peer review is common, but it is often easy for reviewers to identify authors by searching for an unpublished draft online. You should avoid doing this, as knowledge of the authors' identities, particularly their institutional affiliation, seniority, or nationality, can introduce implicit bias into your evaluation. Research suggests that female authors are held to a higher standard, and that papers written by women may undergo a longer review process (Lundberg and Stearns, 2019). In the event that you have an idea about who the author might be, being conscious of such potential biases can help ensure a fair process for all.

Be the reviewer you wish to encounter
Being kind and professional are essential aspects of the review process. Research in economics requires a significant amount of time and effort, with some working many years on a single paper. Being unnecessarily harsh serves no greater purpose but many people behave this way because it reflects their own experiences as an author. Remember that all papers have weaknesses and limitations, but your role as a reviewer is to help the authors strengthen their work and, in doing so, contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

References
Lundberg, S., & Stearns, J. (2019). Women in economics: Stalled progress. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 3-22.

---

Image Credits: Wendolin Jacober / Pexels / Getty Images