Skip to content

Peer Review

Adapted from Kalée Tock and Ryan Caputo

The peer review process is a fundamental quality control mechanism in scientific publishing. Understanding how it works, how to respond to feedback, and how to provide constructive reviews yourself are essential skills for an astronomical researcher.

Understanding the Peer Review Process

How Peer Review Works

After submitting your paper, it undergoes several review stages:

  1. Editorial Screening: Journal editor checks if your paper fits the journal's scope and meets basic quality standards
  2. Peer Selection: Editor selects 1-3 qualified reviewers in your research area
  3. Blind Review: Reviewers evaluate your paper without knowing your identity (in many journals)
  4. Feedback Compilation: Reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to the editor
  5. Editorial Decision: Based on reviews, editor decides to accept, request revisions, or reject

Common Review Outcomes

For double star papers, expect one of these decisions:

  • Accept Without Revisions: Rare, especially for student papers
  • Accept With Minor Revisions: Common; requires clarifications without new analysis
  • Accept With Major Revisions: Requires substantial changes, possibly additional analysis
  • Revise and Resubmit: Significant issues need addressing before reconsideration
  • Reject: Paper doesn't meet journal standards or is outside its scope

Receiving and Interpreting Feedback

Types of Reviewer Comments

Reviewer feedback typically falls into these categories:

  1. Methodological Concerns: Questions about your measurement or analysis techniques
  2. Data Interpretation: Alternative explanations for your observations
  3. Clarity Issues: Confusing explanations or insufficient detail
  4. Reference Gaps: Missing citations or contextual information
  5. Formatting Problems: Non-compliance with journal guidelines
  6. Language/Grammar: Writing clarity and correctness

Example Reviewer Comments for Double Star Papers

Common feedback for double star research includes:

  • "The authors should explain how they determined the uncertainty in their position angle and separation measurements."
  • "More context is needed about previous studies of this system."
  • "The conclusion that the system is physically bound needs stronger evidence."
  • "Figure 3 does not clearly show the measurement process described."
  • "The proper motion analysis should include consideration of measurement errors."

Responding to Reviewer Feedback

Developing a Revision Strategy

When you receive reviewer comments:

  1. Read All Comments: Review all feedback before responding
  2. Categorize Issues: Group similar comments and prioritize by significance
  3. Team Discussion: If working in a team, discuss approach to addressing each point
  4. Task Assignment: Determine who will handle each revision element
  5. Timeline Creation: Set internal deadlines for completing revisions

Creating an Effective Response Document

For each reviewer comment:

  1. Quote the Comment: Copy the exact reviewer text
  2. Provide Your Response: Explain clearly how you've addressed the concern
  3. Reference Changes: Indicate exactly where in the manuscript changes were made
  4. Be Comprehensive: Address every single comment, even if you disagree
  5. Maintain Professionalism: Be courteous and constructive, never defensive

Example Response Format

Reviewer 1, Comment 3: "The authors should clarify how they determined the aperture size for their measurements."

Response: Thank you for this important point. We have added details about our aperture selection process in the Methods section (page 4, paragraph 2). We explain that we tested multiple aperture sizes and selected 5 pixels based on the FWHM of typical stars in our images. This approach is consistent with the methodology described in Collins & Smith (2020).

Handling Disagreements

If you believe a reviewer is mistaken:

  1. Assume Good Faith: Reviewers are trying to improve your paper
  2. Provide Evidence: Explain your reasoning with supporting data or citations
  3. Offer Clarification: The issue may be a misunderstanding due to unclear writing
  4. Consider Compromise: Add discussion of alternative interpretations
  5. Consult Mentor: Get guidance on addressing particularly challenging comments

Providing Effective Peer Review

Learning to review others' work improves your own writing and research:

Qualities of Good Reviews

When reviewing papers (including your classmates'):

  1. Clarity: Focus on whether explanations are understandable
  2. Reproducibility: Check if you could replicate their methods based on descriptions
  3. Conciseness: Note if information could be presented more efficiently
  4. Consistency: Verify that conclusions match the evidence presented
  5. Completeness: Ensure all necessary information is included

The "Cover Test"

A simple evaluation technique:

  1. Read a section of the paper
  2. Cover it so you cannot see the text
  3. Summarize what you just read
  4. Uncover and check if you missed anything important
  5. If you missed key points, the section may be too convoluted

Providing Constructive Comments

Effective feedback is:

  • Specific: Identify exact paragraphs or figures needing improvement
  • Actionable: Suggest concrete ways to address issues
  • Balanced: Note strengths as well as weaknesses
  • Respectful: Focus on the work, not the authors
  • Prioritized: Distinguish between major and minor concerns

Collaborative Review in Team Projects

For BinarSTAR team projects:

Internal Review Process

Before external submission:

  1. Cross-Review: Have team members review sections they didn't write
  2. Unified Voice: Ensure consistent terminology and style throughout
  3. Reference Check: Verify all citations have corresponding references
  4. Figure Verification: Confirm figures effectively support the text
  5. Calculation Confirmation: Double-check all numerical results

Revision Coordination

When handling reviewer feedback as a team:

  1. Shared Responsibility: All team members should review all comments
  2. Specialized Tasks: Assign revision elements based on expertise
  3. Unified Response: Create a single, coherent response document
  4. Quality Control: Have team members review each other's revisions
  5. Final Approval: All authors should approve the revised manuscript

Moving Forward After Publication

After your paper is accepted and published:

  1. Celebrate Achievement: Recognize the significant accomplishment
  2. Share Results: Present at conferences and share with astronomy community
  3. Document Lessons: Note what you learned for future research
  4. Consider Extensions: Identify potential follow-up studies
  5. Update Records: Ensure your measurements are incorporated into catalogs

Final Thoughts

The peer review process, while sometimes challenging, ultimately strengthens your research and writing. By understanding how to interpret and address feedback constructively, you'll develop skills valuable throughout your scientific career.

Your participation in the BinarSTAR program has prepared you with the technical and communication skills needed to contribute meaningfully to astronomical research. Whether you continue in astronomy or apply these skills in other fields, you've experienced the complete scientific process from observation to publication.

Return to Program Overview →