Reviewers' Update - information for reviewers about relevant Elsevier and industry developments, support and training.
Connect
What researchers learn from both sides of peer review
September 10, 2026
|
5 min read
By Lipsa Panda
Experience as an author can help shape your practice as a referee and vice versa
Practically every reviewer is also an author. This Peer Review Weekopens in new tab/window, we are exploring how reviewing shapes authors’ writing habits, and how the experience of being an author informs reviewing in turn…
Reviewing can help reveal flaws and opportunities for improvement in a manuscript, while being on the receiving end of such advice helps authors learn how to give feedback that is specific, useful and actionable. This quiet exchange is seldom a topic of discussion, yet it may be one of the most practical ways researchers learn to improve the quality of peer review. Peer review quality is shaped, one review at a time, by what reviewers focus on, the concerns they prioritize and whether their comments give authors a clear way forward.
To understand how experience on both sides shapes this perspective, I spoke with Julio Toralesopens in new tab/window of the National University of Asunción and Bang Nguyen-Vietopens in new tab/window from the University of Economics in Ho Chi Minh City. Both regularly review manuscripts and submit their own work.
What reviewing can teach authors
Reviewing others’ manuscripts can expose habits that are difficult to see in our own. For Julio, the lesson here was one of restraint.
“As authors, we can become very attached to every analysis, every reference, and every interesting result, because we remember the work behind each of them,” he explains. Reviewing helped him recognize when a paper would be stronger if it attempted a little less and told its main story more clearly.
That recognition also changed the spirit in which he responds as a reviewer. “I am also much more sympathetic when I see it, because I know exactly how hard it is for authors to leave something out,” he says.
Julio Torales, Full Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medical Sciences, at the National University of Asunción
Bang's lesson was more about structure. Before submitting, he now pays close attention to whether the research gap is easy to identify and whether the method is described clearly enough that a reviewer does not have to reconstruct what was done. Reviewing has made him more conscious of the signals a reader needs to follow a paper's purpose and approach.
Their experiences suggest a practical tip: read the manuscript again as though you had no involvement in the research and were seeing it for the first time. Is the question immediately visible? Can the reader follow what was done? Does every element support the central story? Reducing unnecessary effort for the reviewer can also make the paper clearer for readers.
What authors can teach referees
Bang Nguyen-Viet, Associate Professor, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City
Learning is not a one-way street. The experience of receiving reviews as an author can influence not only the manuscript at hand, but also the next review the author writes.
A reviewer once told Julio that something the authors considered obvious was not obvious to him. “It reminded me that, as authors, we know our own work so well that we can easily overlook what needs to be explained.” Now, if a passage is unclear, he does not simply label it as such. As a reviewer, he pinpoints where he lost the thread and, where possible, suggests how the authors might restore it.
Bang injects a similar lesson into his reviews: “The research gap, research question, and theoretical contribution must align.” He thinks of the three as a chain. If that chain breaks, he identifies the missing connection instead of just identifying the break.
These examples show how reviewers can make feedback more useful — not by simply locating the problem, but by explaining why it matters and giving the author a tangible direction for revision. Rigor remains essential, but it becomes more valuable when an author can act on it with clear insight.
Advice for new referees
I asked Julio and Bang one final question: what advice would you give to someone preparing their first review?
Julio focuses on the reviewer's purpose. “The goal of a review is not to show how much the reviewer knows, but to help the authors make the paper better,” he says. His advice is to identify the few issues that matter most, explain why they matter and separate them from smaller suggestions or personal preferences.
Bang suggests examining the paper's potential. He first looks for whether the work offers something new and meaningful, then approaches the review with the intention of strengthening that contribution. “Reviewing is not simply about identifying weaknesses, but about helping authors improve a paper that has the potential to make a meaningful contribution,” he points out.
Lessons for the next review
The advice Julio and Bang offer does not resolve the wider capacity pressures facing peer review. It does, however, show how quality can be sustained within the process: through reviewers who identify what matters, explain their insights clearly and who actively put themselves in the shoes of the author in question.
Systems and technology can support peer review by reducing friction and helping referees focus their attention where their expertise matters most. Elsevier’s new peer review experience brings the exchange between reviewer and author into one place, so it is easier to follow, and the reviewer’s time is better utilized.
The core principle remains the human one, however. Julio captures it well: “Write the review you would hope to receive yourself: rigorous and honest, but also respectful and constructive.” Follow that advice, and you won’t go far wrong!
Further reading
This piece is part of our Researcher Voices program, which spotlights researchers' work, perspectives, and experiences.
Contributor
