I’m going to share some thoughts on my process but please do weigh in with thoughts. 1. IME presses send questions to guide your reading, largely to evaluate the soundness and originality of the argument and to evaluate understanding of and contribution to the historiography. 1/ https://twitter.com/onslies/status/1222197452444512256

2. My goal is to never be the stereotypical Reader #2, which is to say a gatekeeping jerk who makes unfair and obscure demands. So I go into the project optimistic, telling myself that whatever I decide, my work here is to help this book become the best it can be.

3. I read & take notes in hard copy, b/c my strategy on first read is to just note my most blunt assessments. So if I think a chapter is seriously problematic, I can at this phase write exactly that. And b/c it’s in hard copy, no chance that language is in the final report. 2/

3. I also find this to be more efficient, which matters! Reviewing is a slow process, and I find it even slower if I’m trying to simultaneously assess and explain those assessment kindly. (BUT THE KINDNESS MATTERS, DO NOT SKIP LATER STEPS.) 3/

4. Onto step 4, which I call the AITA stage. Look at your notes, and then go back to the manuscript. Are you being fair? Are your expectations suited to the project? Did this manuscript challenge you, and you reacted poorly? 5/

Oh I have so totally messed up the numbers on this thread, I’m abandoning them

5. Ok, Time to write the report. Use your notes to write an assessment of the book’s argument, evidence, structure, clarity, and contribution to the historiography. Now is the time to make it kind — you’re anonymous, it’s true, but try to only write things you’d say in person.

Lots of helpful tips on how to be substantive but kind here: https://drlauravarnam.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/how-to-do-your-first-peer-review/