IGCS 2026 Early Career Workshop-Peer Review Manuscripts

Video Transcription

Video Summary

The session focused on peer review as a core part of scientific publishing and academic development. Gabriel Levin emphasized that reviewing helps researchers become stronger authors, understand editorial decisions, learn new methods, and build their academic credentials. Review invitations should generally be accepted when reviewers have enough time and can assess the manuscript’s methods, while conflicts of interest should be disclosed. Reviews should be timely, confidential, and completed without using AI tools that could compromise manuscript confidentiality or replace the reviewer’s judgment.<br /><br />Levin recommended reading each manuscript twice: first to understand its overall purpose, then to prepare detailed, numbered comments. Reviews should prioritize the methods, including study design, eligibility criteria, statistical analysis, and ethics; check that results are clearly presented and conclusions are supported; and use relevant reporting guidelines. Feedback should identify strengths and provide specific, constructive criticism, avoiding sarcasm, bias, and unnecessary language editing. Suspected plagiarism, inconsistent data, image manipulation, or ethics concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor.<br /><br />Participants then worked in faculty-supported groups to review assigned manuscripts and present their findings. The exercise highlighted common issues such as unclear objectives, methodological weaknesses, inadequate reporting, unsupported conclusions, missing data, and inappropriate analyses. Most groups recommended rejection, while one recommended revision. The workshop concluded by encouraging early-career researchers to build reviewing skills through practice and professional collaboration.

Keywords

peer review

scientific publishing

academic development

reviewer guidelines

confidentiality

conflict of interest

methodological assessment

statistical analysis

constructive criticism

reporting guidelines

research ethics