We encourage reviewers to provide constructive and collegial reviews.  The journal is interested in publishing all types of research relating to the anthropological study of the dentition and oral cavity more broadly.  Below are some general guidelines to consider during peer review that are based on resources published via PLOS.


Peer Review: Sample outline

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize the main research question, claims, and conclusions of the study. Provide context for how this research fits within the existing literature.  This review shows the author and editor(s) how you have interpreted their work and shows that you provided a careful consideration of the manuscript.  The overall strengths and weaknesses should be included here as well as your overall recommendation.


2. Discussion of Areas for Improvement

It is helpful to divide this area into general/major and more specific/minor issues that need to be addressed.  The general/major issues should be discussed first and then followed my specific/minor issues.  All points should be numbered or bullet-pointed, so that they can easily be addressed by the author.  Long narratives should be avoided.

General/Major Issues

General/major issues are fundamental issues that the author needs to address.  These are essential issues that need clarification before the manuscript can be published.  Examples may include issues with overall research design, interpretations of the results, or the omission of a large body of research.  The focus should be on what is essential for the current study, not the next step in the research. Put these items in a list or bullet points and be as specific as possible.

Specific/Minor Issues

Mention additional things the authors should do to improve the manuscript. Typically these will be changes that would not affect the overall conclusions. These could be minor clarification of a figure, a typo, a missing reference, or the clarification of a sentence.  It is NOT the job of the peer reviewer to copy edit the manuscript.  Authors are given the latitude to express their ideas in the way that they see fit. 


3. Other points (optional)

If applicable, add confidential comments for the editors. Raise any concerns about the manuscript that they may need to consider further, such as concerns about ethics or potential plagiarism. Do not use this section for your overall critique. Also mention whether you might be available to look at a revised version.