Everyone has to go through the process to learn how to write a good review, as it is a very acquired skill. But, we can make the learning process a little bit easier. Writing a review is also a hard task because it is not clear who the intended audience of the review is, and how they should action it. In this guide, I'll try to give some advice on what I think makes a good review.
The very first thing to know about writing anything is who you are writing your text for. Our style naturally differs depending on the audience, but who is the audience of a review? While many might answer "the authors" this is only partially true. A good review provides information for both the authors and the deciding person/people.
So what makes a good review for the deciding person and what makes a good review for the authors? Well the answers to these differ as the goals for both groups are different. The deciding person is trying to gain an understanding of a paper to make a decision quickly. The authors are trying to get as much detailed feedback as possible, to improve their work. So when writing a review, write for both.
Writing for both is reasonably straightforward. For the people making a decision it is useful when reviewers i nclude a summary of their review at the very top of it. In this summary, provide a sentence or two about what the paper is about, what it contributes, and what its strengths and weaknesses are. Then also provide a sentence or two on your position on the paper and its readiness for publication. What decision makers are looking for is not necessarily whether each section and question is perfect, but rather whether the manuscript provides something new and interesting for the field. In the section writing to the authors
First, the length of a review is not really a matter of concern. What is a matter of concern is that the review does two things:
a. It has a ve