Selecting suitable reviewers for manuscript editing is a crucial step in publication. First, identify experts in the types of manuscript’s subject area who have published relevant work in reputable journals. Look for researchers with diverse perspectives to ensure a comprehensive review Check our manuscript editing services - https://www.phdassistance.com/services/manuscript/ To Know More Info - https://www.phdassistance.com/blog/peer-reviewer-methodology-in-original-manuscript/ For #Enquiry: Email: info@phdassistance.com India: +91 91769 66446 UK: +44 7537144372

1. Top 10 suggestions given by peer
reviewer in the methodology section of
the original manuscript
An Academic presentation by
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Phdassistance
Group www.phdassistance.com
Email: info@phdassistance.com

2. Introduction
• The pursuit of scientific knowledge and the quest for excellence in research requires a critical evaluation of
scholarly work.
• As researchers, we understand the significance of peer review in refining and strengthening our manuscripts.
• In this context, we present the top 10 invaluable suggestions our esteemed peer reviewer provided to
enhance the methodology section of our original manuscript.
• These suggestions have been meticulously considered and thoughtfully incorporated, shaping our research
into a more robust and comprehensive study, with gratitude for the valuable input received, which now
embodies a deeper level of clarity, precision, and rigour in pursuing scientific excellence.
Contd

3. 10 possible suggestions that a peer reviewer might give for the methodology section of a
manuscript:
Contd
• Clarify the research design:
The reviewer might suggest that the authors clarify the research design and explain how it
fits the research questions and objectives.
• Address sampling issues:
The reviewer might suggest that the authors provide more detail about the sampling
method, the size and characteristics of the sample, and any potential biases or limitations.
• Improve data collection methods:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors provide more detail about the data
collection instruments, procedures, and protocols.
• They might also suggest ways to improve the reliability and validity of the data.

4. • Discuss data analysis methods:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors provide more detail about the data
analysis methods and the software or tools used to analyze the data.
• They might also suggest ways to improve the rigour and credibility of the
analysis.
• Address ethical issues:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors provide more detail about the
ethical considerations of the research and how they were addressed.
• They might also suggest ways to conduct the research ethically and responsibly.
• Describe any pilot testing:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors describe any pilot testing or pre-
testing that was conducted to refine the research instruments or procedures.
Contd

6. • Provide more detail about the research context:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors provide more detail
about the research context, such as the setting, the population,
and any relevant background information.
• Address potential confounding variables:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors identify and
address any potential confounding variables that could impact
the study results.
• Explain any missing data:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors explain any missing
data and how it was handled in the analysis.
• Provide more detail about the limitations:
• The reviewer might suggest that the authors provide more detail
about the limitations of the study, including any potential
sources of bias or other factors that could impact the results or
generalizability of the findings.
Contd

7. • Check out our sample PhD Manuscript examples to see how the PhD Manuscript is developed.
Improving the reliability of manuscript peer review:
• The peer review process is the backbone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of
research.
• However, concerns over the reliability of this process have been raised in recent years. To address these
challenges and foster more robust and trustworthy reviews, we propose a comprehensive approach to
improving the reliability of manuscript peer review.
• This manuscript in research outlines key strategies to enhance reviewer selection, feedback quality, and
overall review consistency.

9. • To improve reliability, rigorously select reviewers with expertise in the manuscript publishing subject
matter.
• Implement an expert database and engage early-career researchers for fresh perspectives. A standard
training program equips reviewers with best practices and ethical guidelines, promoting review
consistency.
• A structured review template addresses key aspects of the manuscript example, and reviewers should
provide clear rationales and actionable suggestions for improvement.
• A double-blind review process minimizes potential bias and enhances objectivity.
Check out our study guide to learn more about the Rules for Manuscript Submission and Publication

10. PhD Assistance
• PhD Assistance offers end-to-end services for rewriting manuscripts, including statistics
and programming, editing, proofreading, formatting, and submission.
• With years of experience, these experts aim to provide content with qualities like
coherence, clarity, error-freeness, inconsistency, and repetition. There are three main
copyediting processes: proofreading, copyediting, and precision editing. Their in-depth
knowledge of the research subject, meticulous planning, organizing, presentation skills,
and 100% client commitment have helped students complete their research projects
ahead of deadlines.

11. Contact Us
+44 7537144372
UNITED KINGDOM
+91-9176966446
EMAIL
INDIA
info@phdassistance.com