The document provides guidance on how to effectively review a paper, outlining key steps in the reviewing process such as determining if you have the necessary expertise, time commitment, and avoiding conflicts of interest. It discusses drafting an objective review that considers potential biases and makes a clear recommendation on publication. The document also notes confidential comments for the editor should align overall with comments provided to authors.

1. How to
review a paper
effectively
Graciela Gil-Romera
@gilromera www.gilromera.com
Dept. Geography and Environmental Sciences, Aberystwyth University (UK) Dept.
of Palaeoenvironments and Global Change, IPE-CSIC (Spain)
This presentation can be used and reproduced under CC By-SA license
photo by Eli Francis
via Unsplash (CC00)

2. Vincent’s company blog
Buried treasure
Exponential production
still needs quality control

3. We are all
needed

4. Part of our
service to the
community
Own
research
Transference
Service

5. The
reviewing
process
in a
nutshell

6. The critical
position of the reviewer

7. https://bit.ly/2gPMwVE

10. EXPERTISE
Monitoring
Disturbance
responsePalaeo-eco
processes

12. Time

13. Is it my best friend?
Is it my worst enemy?
Is it my best friend?

14. Is it my worst enemy?

15. ❏ Do I have the
expertise?
❏ Do I have the
time?
❏ Do I have a
conflict?

16. code
of conduct

18. “Do not impose on
others what you
do not wish for
yourself."
1785 Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals

19. “Treat others how
you wish to be
treated"
1785 Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals

20. digital
or
printing?

21. Pérez Sanz et al., 2013

22. PDF
Word
processor

31. Macro-remains
Bulk sediment
Charcoal
Cs-Pb
Pérez Sanz et al., 2013

32. Cs-Pb
Bulk sediment
Charcoal
Alkane
Bittneretal.(inprep.)

33. https://youtu.be/s3JldKoA0zw
Reproducibility
https://go.nature.com/2pAKKgp

35. Drafting the
review

39. Reviewing
mindfully

40. https://bit.ly/2pzgOkD

41. Bias
awareness

42. Bias
awareness
Gender
Geographical
Seniority
Confirmation

43. https://bit.ly/2LX5MmR

44. Recommendation

45. Recommendation

46. Recommendation

47. Notes for
the editor

48. Notes for the editor
Confidential comments to the editors should
not be significantly different to the comments
to the authors. The overall message of both
should be the same.

49. Notes for the editor
However, statements regarding whether or not
an article should be published in the journal
should only be made in the comments to the
editor.

50. DISCLOSING
IDENTITY

51. Double-blind
Open Peer-reviewed

52. What happens
after the
decision?

53. Focusing
on critical
aspects

54. More resources
1. Brilliant guide by BES
2. Guide for the new reviewer
3. Other people ideas
4. Wiley’s guide