How to Write a Peer Review Report: A Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

Getting invited to peer review is a sign of respect. Someone in your field trusts your judgment. But sitting down to actually write the review is a different challenge. Most reviewers, especially early-career researchers, are never formally trained on how to do it.

This guide walks you through exactly how to write a peer review report: what sections to include, how to word your feedback, and what editors are actually looking for. There is also a Jenni section at the end if you want help structuring your approach before you write.

<CTA title="Review Smarter, Not Harder" description="Use Jenni to analyse claims and citations in manuscripts before writing your review. Catch what others miss in half the time." buttonLabel="Try Jenni Free" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />

What Does a Peer Review Report Include?

Every peer review report follows the same core structure, whether the journal uses a formal form or asks for free-text comments. The format is consistent across the main types of peer review: single-blind, double-blind, and open review. These four components are standard across disciplines:

• Summary: A brief overview of the paper's main argument, method, and findings in your own words.

• Major Comments: Significant issues that could affect the paper's validity, logic, or publishability.

• Minor Comments: Smaller issues like unclear wording, formatting errors, or missing references.

• Recommendation: Your overall verdict: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

<ProTip title="📌 Note:" description="Most journals provide a reviewer form with set fields. Even when they do, editors read free-text comments most carefully. The form is a structure, not a ceiling." />

How to Write a Peer Review Report, Step by Step

The steps below apply to any manuscript review, regardless of discipline or journal. Work through them in order and you will have a complete, credible report.

Step 1 — Do Your First Read Without Taking Notes

Resist the urge to annotate on your first pass. Read the manuscript start to finish and form an overall impression.

Ask yourself one question: “Does this paper make a meaningful contribution, and is the core argument coherent?”

Everything else comes after.

Step 2 — Write Your Summary Paragraph

Your summary shows the editor you understood the paper. It is not a restatement of the abstract. Write it as your own interpretation of what the paper actually argues and whether the method genuinely supports the conclusions.

"This paper examines the relationship between sleep deprivation and working memory in undergraduate students using a within-subjects design. The authors argue that even moderate sleep restriction produces measurable deficits comparable to total sleep loss. The methodology is sound, but the conclusions extend beyond what the sample size can support."

Step 3 — List Your Major Concerns

Major concerns are anything that affects the paper's validity, logic, or core contribution. Be specific. Vague feedback is not useful to authors or editors, and editors rely on specific, actionable reviewer comments to make confident decisions.

Here are examples of well-phrased major comments:

• "The sample size (n=12) is insufficient to support the population-level claim made in the conclusion."

• "The control condition is not described with enough detail to assess whether confounding was adequately controlled."

• "The literature review omits several key studies from 2019 to 2022 that directly contradict the central hypothesis."

<ProTip title="💡 Pro Tip:" description="Number your major comments and reference them by line number in the manuscript. This makes it far easier for authors to locate what you are pointing to and respond point-by-point." />

Step 4 — List Minor Issues

Minor issues do not threaten the paper's contribution, but they should still be corrected before publication.

Common examples include:

• Typographical errors or grammatical issues

• Inconsistent terminology across sections

• References that are incorrectly formatted or missing

• Figures or tables that lack clear labels

• Sentences that are technically correct but hard to follow

Step 5 — Write Your Recommendation

Your recommendation should follow naturally from your comments. If your major concerns are severe, the recommendation should reflect that. If the issues are small and fixable, minor revision is appropriate. Use this table as a guide:

<ProTip title="📝 Note:" description="When recommending major revision, give authors a clear path forward. A review that says major revision required without explaining what a successful revision looks like is frustrating and unhelpful to everyone, including the editor." />

Peer Review Language and Tone

The way you phrase feedback matters as much as what you say. Reviewers who write with precision and professionalism are more credible to editors and more useful to authors.

Do write:

• "The analysis in Section 3 would benefit from..."

• "The authors should consider whether..."

• "This claim requires a citation or empirical support"

Do not write:

• "This paper is poorly written and should be rejected" (vague, harsh, no actionable path forward)

• "I loved this paper, brilliant work throughout" (not useful to editors making a decision)

• "The authors clearly do not understand this field" (unprofessional and unconstructive)

Research confirms that constructive criticism is the standard even when recommending rejection. Your role as a reviewer extends beyond making a judgment call. It includes helping authors understand what would make their work publishable.

How to Write a Peer Review Using Jenni

Before you sit down to write your review, Jenni can help you analyse the manuscript's claims and citations, giving you a structured starting point rather than a blank page.

Step 1: Upload the manuscript PDF to your Jenni library

Drag and drop the paper into your Jenni document library. It stays accessible throughout your review process and can be referenced directly in the chat panel.

Step 2: Use Jenni's chat to surface unsupported claims

Open the chat panel and ask Jenni to analyse the document. A useful prompt to start with:

"List any claims in this document that are not supported by a cited source"

This surfaces citation gaps quickly so you know where to focus before writing a single comment.

Step 3: Run Jenni's Reviews feature for a document-level analysis

Jenni's Reviews feature flags issues across six categories of common manuscript problems. It returns inline annotations you can work through systematically.

Read more about how Jenni Reviews works and what each flagging category covers.

Step 4: Use the output as your structured starting point You are the expert. Jenni helps you catch what is easy to miss before you begin writing. Start your review from a position of comprehensive awareness, not guesswork.

<ProTip title="💡 Pro Tip:" description="Jenni does not replace your expert judgment. Think of it as a first-pass filter. It catches citation gaps and unsupported claims quickly so you can focus your time on evaluating the actual science." />

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should a peer review report be?

Most peer review reports run between 400 and 1,000 words, depending on the journal and the complexity of the paper. There is no universal standard, but your report should be long enough to address every significant issue clearly. A focused 600-word review is more useful to an editor than a vague 1,500-word one.

What should I include in a peer review summary?

Your summary should briefly describe the paper's main argument, method, and findings in your own words. It is not a restatement of the abstract. It shows the editor you understood the paper's core contribution and can evaluate it on its own terms. Keep it to three to five sentences.

How do I write a peer review for the first time?

Start by reading the full manuscript once without taking notes. Then write a short summary in your own words. List your major concerns, followed by minor issues. Write your recommendation last so it follows logically from your comments. Most journals provide a reviewer form that guides you through each section.

How do you phrase constructive criticism in a peer review?

Focus on the work, not the author. Use phrases like "the analysis in Section 3 would benefit from..." or "the authors should consider whether..." Avoid vague statements like "this paper is poorly written." Specific, actionable comments are more useful to authors and more credible to editors than general criticism.

Can I use AI to help write a peer review?

You can use AI tools to help analyse a manuscript before writing your review, such as checking whether claims are supported by cited sources. However, submitting an AI-generated review as your own expert opinion violates most journal ethics policies. Use AI for preparation, not substitution. Disclosure requirements also vary by journal.

A Good Review Is a Contribution to the Field

Peer review is not gatekeeping. It is collaboration. A thorough, well-structured review helps authors improve their work, helps editors make better decisions, and helps the field maintain its standards. The researchers whose work you are reviewing are relying on you to be specific, fair, and constructive.

<CTA title="Analyze a Manuscript Before You Review It" description="Upload any paper to Jenni and use the Reviews feature to surface claim and citation issues in minutes, before you write a single comment." buttonLabel="Try Jenni Free" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />

The next time you face a blank reviewer form, start with your summary. Everything else follows from there. When your review is submitted and revisions come back to the authors, point them to our guide on how to respond to peer review comments.