{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015706806282722512, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012565445026178011, 'mean_word_length': 4.759036144578313, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript

Peer review is an essential component of the scientific method. Here we offer advice on how to produce highly effective reviews. Our advice is presented in 2 parts in which we describe: 1) initial questions that a referee should address before agreeing to conduct a review and 2) formulaic components of a review. Our advice reflects our collective experiences over 40 y during which we have completed >200 reviews for at least 25 journals, and one of us (GJS) has 14 y of ongoing service as an associate editor with Freshwater Science and its predecessor, the Journal of the North American Benthological Society. We also have drawn advice from published and nontraditional accounts on how to complete effective reviews. We emphasize the role of referees and editorial staff in the peer review process. Our advice may be of greatest value to scientists who are in early phases of their careers.