Here, we'll look at the basic tenets of peer review, and we've provided a sample framework to help new reviewers give comments that will help authors strengthen their papers.

There are 5 basic tenets that should be kept in mind:

• Decline the review if you have any conflicts of interest (COIs).
• Remember that you're advising the journal editor, not making the decision about whether to accept or reject.
• Try to be helpful and always respectful to the author.
• Maintain confidentiality of the paper contents.
• Decline the review if you are too busy, or not familiar enough with the topic, to complete a proper review.

Peer reviews are intended to be impartial (unbiased), and so anyone asked to be a reviewer should consider, before accepting, whether they have any COIs. Anything that could make you, as a reviewer, consider the paper more or less favorably because of your relationship with the author is a COI. You should decline to review, or at minimum disclose to the journal editor, papers written by (a) past co-authors of yours, (b) members of your department, (c) your students or mentors, (d) personal friends, and (e) professional rivals. You should also decline if you will gain any potential financial or personal benefits from publication of the work. If you are unsure about whether a conflict of interest exists, check the journal's guidelines or with the journal editor. As examples of COI policies, Elsevier has a general factsheet on COIs and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides information about peer reviewer responsibilities.

The reviewer acts as an advisor to the journal editor. Because of this, the review should be more than a simple "accept" or "reject". When writing a review, you should describe the reasons for the recommendation so that the editor can make an informed decision. It is far more important to comment on the academic content of a paper than on grammar and punctuation. However, if the language is too poor to understand the contents adequately, then alert the journal editor. See below for a sample framework that will assist you in ensuring that you've covered the most important points in your review.

The review will be sent to the author of the paper. Because of this, reviewers are in a strong position to advise the author on how the paper could be strengthened. Whether you are recommending acceptance or rejection, the author could benefit from your feedback and advice. One particular caution is when you want to suggest the authors cite your own papers—do this sparingly. The review should be intended to help the author, not the reviewer. Finally, reviews should be respectful in tone. Unfortunately, we've all seen derogatory and unhelpful reviewer comments at times, which do not help the author. Peer review should be collegial and respectful.

Reviewers receive submitted papers with the understanding that they are handling confidential communications. As such, they should not discuss the review or disclose any of its content to third parties. Reviewers also should not use their knowledge of the work they are reviewing to further their own personal interests.

Reviewers who are not able to provide a proper review, due to lack of time or lack of expertise in the area covered by the paper, should decline the review.

Many journals provide reviewers with a form to fill out during review, but the framework below can be used in other cases.

We hope you've found these tips useful. We currently offer support for new and experienced reviewers in a number of ways, including by translating their comments to English and by editing their English comments to ensure that the authors receiving the review have high-quality, well-worded comments that help them strengthen their manuscripts.

Also, if you have any questions about writing effective reviewer comments, please do let us know. We're happy to support you in this important academic task.