How To Write A Technical Paper

How to Review a Technical Paper

Alan Meier

Berkeley Lab

University of California

Berkeley, CA 94720 USA

(Received March 27, 1992)

Abstract

Peer review of journal articles and other technical reports is a key element in the maintenance of academic integrity. This article assists the reader in the efficient preparation of constructive reviews. The parts of a typical review are listed, as well as formats for the most common situations. Common defects of technical papers are discussed.

Introduction

At one time or another, every academic is asked to review papers submitted for publication in journals. These reviews play a key role in maintaining the integrity of a journal. In addition, the exercise exposes the referee and the author to new ideas and perspectives. Unfortunately, nascent academics are never formally taught the art and skills needed to referee a technical paper. As a result, most reviews take more time than necessary, while contributing little constructive knowledge to the author. The following text offers some tips to the referee to assist in the preparation of a written review. Learning the mechanics of review writing can never substitute for full comprehension of the material, but it can transform the review into a constructive document. At the same time, there are simple rules for identifying flaws in the paper that greatly simplify review preparation and allow the referee to concentrate on the paper's content. This guide focuses on technical papers, but some of the advice also applies to papers in the social sciences and liberal arts.

Why is a review necessary?

The peer review serves several roles, although the precise combination varies with the type of review. The most important reasons for review include finding deficiencies in:

- technical approach and analysis;

- computation;

- ignorance of related research.

Each of these categories requires a referee with broad knowledge of the topic to recognize these deficiencies. Even simple arithmetic errors need an expert to detect them. Errors of the "2 x 3 = 7" type are rarely spotted directly; rather, a referee will sense that something is wrong with an argument, and then trace it back to the arithmetic error. No self-respecting researcher wants such errors publicized, so the review process limits the humiliation to a much smaller (and often anonymous) circle.

Reviews are useful to detect a second kind of problem. Two examples are:

- style and grammar that confuse the reader;

- patent or legal issues.

These aspects are often addressed by specialists in editing and law rather than the topic of the paper. Unfortunately, most academic journals lack the staff to assist the author, so the referee should alert the author to style and grammar errors, especially if they are serious. Certainly the author will want his or her paper read, understood, and appreciated by as many people as possible; therefore it is in his interest to repair these problems before the paper is published or circulated.

Types of reviews

There are three types of reviews: "anonymous", "friendly", and "internal". In an anonymous review, the editor solicits a referee to review the article. The referee returns the review to the editor who, after removing any identification, gives it to the author. Academic journals typically use the anonymous review, but it is also used for books, articles in proceedings, and some reports.

Many authors send drafts of articles or reports to other experts and solicit their comments. This is called a "friendly" review. In such cases, the reviewer is known to the author. The timid reviewer may be reluctant to harshly criticize a paper, so these are less valued than an anonymous review (although a true friend should be the severest critic in private).

Many laboratories and research institutes require that all papers be internally reviewed prior to submission to a journal or proceedings. The quality of such reviews is highly variable, from extremely rigorous to worthless beyond protecting the author from the most outrageous errors.

In all cases, however, the procedure to review a paper is fundamentally similar. This guide assumes that you are anonymously reviewing a paper for an academic journal.

Most reviews have four parts

Before reviewing a paper, it is useful to consider the desired output. In this way, you can categorize your comments for later inclusion in the best part. The four parts of a review are:

- referee's review form;

- additional comments;

- original paper;

- cover letter to editor.

Most journals ask the referee to fill out a review form. The form consists of a list of questions about the article, and often solicits recommendations. Poorly designed forms allow "yes/no" answers, but more sophisticated ones prompt the referee to elaborate (and provide space for those comments). The form is typically designed such that the referee's name is on the opposite side or on a tear-off portion to protect his identity.

Nearly all forms ask the referee to write additional comments on a separate page. This may include responses to questions on the form that were too long to fit in the allocated space or comments that were not appropriate for any specific question.

The referee often returns the original paper to the editor. Sometimes it is simpler to write comments directly on the paper than to describe them in the "additional comments" section. Editing corrections are particularly easy to show this way. If only a few pages are covered with red ink, you can save postal charges by mailing only those offending pages.

The cover letter to the editor is a useful document in addition to being a civil act. First, it reminds the editor of your review and the associated paper.