Have you ever been asked to peer review a paper and found yourself thinking, “What exactly am I looking for?”
You’re not alone.
Recently, while working through another review, I started wondering whether I had developed my own internal process — or if this was what everyone does. I also started digging through editorial guidelines, and what I found surprised me: a sea of vague terms like “adequate quality,” “appropriate method,” and “high-quality data.” None of them are helpful when you’re trying to focus and be fair.
Most of us learn to review from our supervisors — as I did during my PhD — but sometimes, it would be nice to have a succinct set of instructions — just to be sure you’re covering the right ground. Not more bureaucracy, just more clarity.
So I created a focused protocol that merges my own process with the best of existing editorial advice (like Wiley’s). It’s designed specifically for climate science papers, with:
- No abstract fluff
- No double-reading
- A real focus on scientific clarity and integrity
I’ve published the full protocol here, and also made a downloadable version you can keep by your side while reviewing.
Linda van Garderen 