Should a peer review for an academic journal include a recommendation for acceptance?

Question

I have been asked to review an article for an academic journal for the first time. The accepted answer to Scope for the role of peer reviewer as well as this post have given me a good idea of what to include and how to structure my review already.

What I find not mentioned in either post (but somehow seem to have it in the back of my head) is, whether I should include a recommendation to the editor about accepting the paper or not? I.e. a short line such as I deem the paper [not] suitable for publication in [journal name].

Or is this more complicated and I should include such a statement only if I have a strong opinion for or against the paper I review and otherwise leave it up to the editor?

In my case there is no template or instructions for the review given by the editor/journal. The field, if it matters, could be mathematics or economics.

Answer 1

Remember that the final decision is always up to the editor regardless of your recommendation. And (hopefully) the editor reads your entire review, not just the recommendation.

I usually include a recommendation in my reviews, but I always try to justify it thoroughly, so that the recommendation itself is essentially a redundant summary of what I have already said. If I do not have a strong opinion either way, I will say so.

Answer 2

I am in a different field, but what I usually do is start off with a brief summary of what the paper is about, within this, I would include a sentence something along the lines of:

... Therefore, it is recommended that the manuscript is within scope, hence suitable for publication in [publication]

(or the negative, if necessary). This is a clear and direct statement of recommendation. Similar can be written if you do not have a strong opinion, such as:

The manuscript appears within scope and could be suitable for publication.

Then the following sentence, leading into your actual review:

However, there are a number of issues that need to be resolved before it is published.

Answer 3

I'm in the social and health sciences, so I'm not sure how different this would be for your discipline. The easiest ways to make a recommendation that won't go directly to he authors is to select "accept," "major revision" and so on if there is an online system, like Fred indicates above. Some online systems also have separate response sections for the editor and authors, where the authors won't have access to your comments you make just to the editor.

If you need to write your recommendation directly to the authors, there are a number of ways to phrase this. For example, "In its current state, this manuscript is not ready for publication, though here are some ways it could be improved..." Or (more enthusiastically), "This paper addresses a very important issue and I have offered some suggestions to prepare it for publication." Hence, you can say something is not ready to be accepted without fully rejecting it, which is the role of the editor anyway. However, if you read something that doesn't seem salvageable, you can also say, "This manuscript does not appear appropriate for journal XYZ and here are the reasons why..."

Hope this helps! I don't know if there are more common things to say in mathematics or economics.

Answer 4

Short Answer: Provide your formal recommendation about acceptance to the editor and not in your comments to the author.

---

In my field, most publication systems include a multiple choice question where reviewers indicate their recommendation to the editor (e.g., reject, major revisions, minor revisions, accept, etc.).

I generally find that most reviewers do not include a recommendation in their review that goes out to the authors.

Instead, the explicit recommendation is usually made using the recommendation check box in the editorial system and may be combined with additional information supplied in the "comments to editor" box.

There a few reasons why a reviewer may not want to place their recommendation in the "comments to author" box.

• It is the reviewers role to evaluate the quality and importance of the manuscript. The editor is responsible for the decision about what is suitable for the journal, all things considered.
• By not putting a recommendation in the author comments box, the editor has a little more flexibility in how they frame the response to the authors. The editor can choose to share the reviewer recommendations about acceptance with the author or not. For example, the reviewers might both recommend major revisions, but the editor decides to reject. The author sees all the problems identified by the reviewers and may more readily accept the editor's decision.

Of course, the review that goes to the authors may be suggest what the reviewers recommend. Most reviews involve an initial paragraph that (a) summarises the reviewer's understanding of the manuscript, and (b) provides an overall synopsis of whether the topic is important, interesting, and suitable for the journal, and whether the paper is of acceptable quality. More detailed comments will also imply the degree to which the paper could readily be refined (i.e., suggestive of revisions) or has fundamental shortcomings (i.e., suggestive of rejection).

As an additional note, I generally try to keep any note to the editor quite short. I like the transparency of as much as possible of my review going to the authors.