Consider submitting to Analytical Biochemistry, a journal where Simone is Executive Editor!

Suggestions for reviewers

This page offers a streamlined reference for scientists asked to review manuscripts, grants, or other scholarly work. Its purpose is to make the reviewing process more systematic: identify strengths and weaknesses efficiently, evaluate claims with clarity, and provide feedback that genuinely improves the work. The emphasis is on scientific rigor, transparency, and clear reasoning rather than stylistic preferences.

What a reviewer does: A reviewer begins by confirming that the work fits the scope of the journal or funding call and by considering any potential conflicts of interest. After that, the central task is to assess whether the study design, methods, and analyses support the authors’ conclusions. This includes evaluating the adequacy of controls, the appropriateness of statistics, and the transparency of methodological reporting. Clarity is part of scientific rigor, so reviewers should note where writing, figures, or data availability prevent a full understanding of the results. Confidential notes to the editor can address novelty, ethical questions, or deeper concerns that require editorial guidance.

Online resources

GSA Peer Review Training Program: Practical guidance for building strong reviewing skills.

Nature Masterclass: Modules on responsibilities, evaluation, and communication in peer review.

Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing: Covers clarity, structure, data presentation, and common pitfalls in scientific papers.