1. These are my own personal 10 commandments of peer review:

I the reviewer WILL write my review in a helpful, kind, & considerate voice. I will NOT sound angry, be snarky, make derogatory comments, be rude, be dismissive, or be condescending.

2.I the reviewer WILL aim to make the paper I am reviewing better, NOT to search tirelessly for any weaknesses to attack, to look for reasons to undermine its conclusion & reject the premises no matter the data, to show the authors I am smarter or know the field better than them.

3. I the reviewer do NOT have the expectation that the authors agree w/ my point of view or interpretation of the models & data in the field, my view of the paper will NOT be based by my biases or by which models fit my own data the best.

4. I the reviewer WILL review the paper in front of me, not the paper I wish was in front of me, I will NOT make the authors change the focus or interpretation or model to be one that I personally like better or suits my own data and biases the best.

5. I the reviewer WILL suggest changes only when necessary & only to make the paper better, I WILL be helpful & professional. I WILL aim to ask for the minimum amount of new work that will to lead to the maximum improvement of the paper.

6. I the reviewer am NOT the author’s enemy, we are both on the same team, team science, we WILL work together to make the paper better not as a pair of combatants but as collaborators. The goal of the collaboration is to make the science the best it could be.

7. I the reviewer WILL always say yes to a review if there is time in my schedule & the paper is an area I am an expert in. Reviewing manuscripts carefully, thoughtfully, & quickly is one of the nicest & most helpful things I can do for my colleagues, it is a great responsibility

8. I the reviewer WILL do my best to review manuscripts as soon as I can. I WILL turn down manuscript review requests that I cannot review quickly because I have other obligations. I If I turn down a review request I WILL always try to suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

9. I the reviewer WILL sometimes make mistakes in my review & if the authors rebut my mistake I will NOT get defensive, I WILL listen to the authors the same way I expect them to listen to me. The process of making the paper better WILL be a 2 way conversation not a monologue.

10. I the reviewer WILL review the paper the exact same way whether the author is a friend, a competitor, a famous PI, or a new PI. I WILL provide the same high quality review independently of where the science was done & who did it. I WILL review the science not the person.

@threadreaderapp please unroll