Scientific Reviewing—Editors’ Memo to Emerging Reviewers − 2

Peer reviewers-the Linchpin RoleAs the linchpin of scientific publishing, reviewers are essential and usually anonymous.Reviewers are largely uncompensated custodians of the process.Review styles differ, and no two reviewers reveal the same review-but may capture major drawbacks.Following the "Swiss-cheese" analogy, multiple reviewers cover the gaps inherent in solo review.If faced with review fatigue, decline rather than offering an inappropriate review. Editors' "Third eye".Reviewers help assess the paper's relevance to the journal's aims; the rationale (why the work was conducted); the quality of the science; its broader value (for example, whether a narrow sub-analysis adds little beyond existing work such as a sub analysis of chronic disease DALYs among 70 to 75 years old); potential harms (e.g., stigma, social isolation of a population group, or causing public harm); and the need for specialized review (e.g., statistics, drug trial experts, ethicists) or transfer to a more suitable journal. Authors' sounding board.Reviewers have an unwritten mandate as mentors.Pair critiques with concrete suggestions (e.g., "Statement X does not capture the findings; consider revising to ''").Help authors surface overlooked insights and temper overstatements.Strive for objectivity and clarity.Acknowledge strengths before listing challenges