Peer Review: Learning How, and Learning From It

Peer review is the heart of scientific publishing, and reviewers help take a manuscript from a draft to a resource clinicians can use. In the final installment of a 4-part webinar series from the International Journal of MS Care, editor in chief François Bethoux, MD, and associate editor Mary Alissa Willis, MD, discuss the work from the other side of the desk.

A first invitation intimidates almost everyone. Two rules help. Stay in your comfort zone and accept papers on topics you feel qualified to evaluate. Consider working with a mentor, which most journals accept as long as the team is disclosed to the editorial office. Editors would also far rather receive a prompt decline than wait for a review that never arrives.

The editors recommend reading a manuscript more than once: look for the story on the first pass, then work through a checklist section by section. Comments to the author should be specific, constructive, and polite, while confidential comments to the editor can carry concerns that cannot be raised directly. The goal is to take a paper from good to great.

Reviewing is also a growth tool. Critical appraisal sharpens how you read evidence, and it helps separate what can be used in practice now from what still needs stronger support. Reviewing manuscripts in emerging areas can shape the guidance you give to patients.

This installment closes the series, which also covers finding a question worth publishing, turning a conference poster into a manuscript, and conducting a literature review.