Generous manuscript review

Generous peer review is essential for scientific review, yet many researchers experience the current review culture as unkind. Harsh reviews disproportionately affect women, researchers of color, and other under-represented groups, contributing to reduced confidence, diminished job satisfaction, and delayed career progression. In contrast, generous reviewing strengthens research quality, promotes equity, and reinforces the collaborative foundations of science.

This article outlines four principles to guide a more generous approach to manuscript review: empathizing with authors, providing constructive criticism, focusing on areas of genuine expertise, and advocating for systemic improvements in academic publishing. Empathy encourages reviewers to recognize the emotional and professional labor behind every submission, framing feedback in a manner that supports learning rather than discouragement. Constructive criticism emphasizes specificity, actionable guidance, and a distinction between major and minor concerns. Reviewing within one's expertise enhances accuracy and protects against misplaced or misleading critique, while acknowledging limitations promotes humility and transparency. Finally, reviewers are well positioned to promote broader equity, including advocating for fair article processing charge policies, inclusive language support, and greater recognition of reviewer labor.

Cultivating generosity in peer review does not diminish rigor; it enhances the effectiveness, fairness, and impact of scholarly communication. By adopting these principles, reviewers can help shift the culture of peer review towards one that encourages improvement, supports diverse researchers, and advances high-quality science.