Peer review and the evaluation reports writing as a constructive and formative process: reflections grounded in the editorial practices of the journal EnsaioDear reader, this editorial aims to reflect on the formative and constructive role of peer review, a practice firmly established in the publication processes of scientific research across different fields of knowledge. We begin by articulating the theoretical assumptions that underpin our work with the editorial practices adopted by the journal Ensaio. In this sense, our objective is to broaden the discussion on the criteria that our team has considered relevant in producing constructive review reports.
For centuries, journal publication has become established as the primary means of communication in science (Adam, 2024; Spier, 2002). Over time, editorial processes have grown more complex, which has included peer review as a central practice of scientific communication. In the early days, there were no rules or criteria established as there are today (Kronick, 1990). The oldest journal still in operation, Philosophical Transactions, began publishing in 1665 without peer review. At that time, what took place was a selection, by the person responsible for the journal, of the articles that would be published (Adam, 2024; Spier, 2002).
Practices resembling what we now know as peer review began to be adopted only decades later—that is, specialists issuing evaluations of a manuscript that were then analyzed by journal editors (Kronick, 1990). One of the first examples of this type of procedure can be observed in the journal Medical Essays and Observations in 1731 (Kronick, 1990). Until then, problems in publications were identified by other scientists when they pointed out flaws in their peers’ studies in their own publications. To some extent, this type of publicized debate still takes place. However, most theoretical and/or methodological problems in a piece of research are now discussed and resolved during peer review, before a manuscript is published (Csiszar, 2016).
This process gradually became more specialized and certain rules were established. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, for example, what we now know as anonymous review was introduced; at that time, usually only the reviewers’ identities were kept anonymous (Csiszar, 2016; Kronick, 1990). From the second half of that century onward, double-blind review became established (Kronick, 1990; Spier, 2002), that is, both authors’ and reviewers’ identities were kept anonymous.
Throughout the twentieth century, peer review became established as a central practice in scientific publishing. Since then, new demands and initiatives have emerged, such as efforts to increase transparency and reduce bias in reviews, initiatives related to open peer review (Mendonça et al., 2023), as well as discussions on the role of constructive reviews in the development of scientific knowledge (Cabezas et al., 2018; Hohendorff, 2021). Accordingly, in this editorial we focus specifically on this latter aspect: the production of formative and constructive review reports.
Our motivation initially stemmed from challenges that are also shared by editors of other journals in the fields of Education and Science Education. For decades, difficulties in finding reviewers have been observed, as already noted by Pinho (2005). This difficulty may be related to the lack of remuneration for review work, the overload of professional demands faced by reviewers, or their simultaneous involvement in reviews for other journals and academic commitments. It is common, for example, for invitees to decline review requests or to ask for additional time to complete their reports.
These challenges do not arise solely from the difficulty of finding reviewers. They also involve the absence of a process for training reviewers and of a qualified debate about what constitutes a constructive review within the field. This has harmful consequences for editorial processes. At times, editors have to initiate new rounds of review because they receive reports with low rigor or vague assessments. In some cases, reviews may be marked by value judgments and hostility (Hohendorff, 2021), written in a superficial and rushed manner (Pinho, 2005), and lacking the grounds needed to support the editorial decision (Gross, 2020). For various reasons discussed in the literature, reviews may also be insufficient, requiring the editors to seek a new evaluation (Patrus et al., 2016). These factors make the editorial workflow even more challenging, demanding sensitivity, ethics, and a commitment to the quality of the review process. These issues are commonly shared with other editorial collectives, such as the Fórum de Editores de Periódicos da Área de Educação - FEPAE; in meetings of editors held at Science Education Brazilian conferences (e.g. ENPEC); or within the recently established committee of the Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências (ABRAPEC), focused on Brazilian journals in the field.
EDITORIAL WORKFLOW
We learned useful lessons in addressing these challenges. A first aspect in this regard concerns the very structure and workflow of the editorial work we have adopted. At Ensaio, we have a team composed of people who occupy the roles of assistant editors, associate editors, and editor-in-chief. Each of these groups carries out distinct activities, yet they are articulated in a continuum within the editorial process. This structure enables a collective, plural, and collaborative working dynamic, which provides greater transparency in the evaluation of articles and significantly minimizes possible errors throughout the editorial process as a whole.
The editorial work of Ensaio begins with the receipt of the manuscript by the assistant editors. This stage involves a pre-analysis that considers both the content—focusing on the essential elements that a research report manuscript should present—and its form. Specifically, the preliminary evaluation includes the following criteria: clarity of writing; relevance to the journal’s scope; adequacy of the writing to standard language norms; identification of confidential information; plagiarism checking; and compliance with the journal’s formatting guidelines. At this stage, it is assessed whether the manuscript has the potential to move on to the next phase of evaluation, conducted by the associate editors. Still during the pre-analysis, the authors’ declarations are also examined, which are necessary for the manuscript to proceed through the workflow, namely: information on the use of generative AI tools in the production of the manuscript’s content; adherence to the journal’s open science policies; registration of each author’s contribution to the manuscript; and a statement on the ethical principles and procedures adopted in the research. This process is overseen by the editor-in-chief, which helps ensure that the editorial workflow is conducted with agility and quality, and in a dialogical and transparent manner in decision-making.
In view of the authors’ declarations and the manuscript’s potential to proceed to peer review, the editor-in-chief selects one of the associate editors to oversee the manuscript from this point onward. This choice is based on criteria such as familiarity with the topic and the subfield addressed, so as to ensure that the editorial follow-up is carried out with specialized knowledge of the field of study, thus contributing to a more qualified process. In addition, another aspect considered is the absence of conflicts of interest between the editors and the manuscript’s authors. These precautions seek to ensure transparency and scientific integrity, as well as to reduce possible subjective biases in the process.
With the appointment of an associate editor from our team, the manuscript proceeds to the peer-review process. At this stage, several criteria are considered for the careful selection of reviewers, namely: holding a doctoral degree; having expertise related to the manuscript’s topic; demonstrating active research in the relevant area; and, above all, having no professional ties or recent joint publications with the authors. These criteria aim to preserve the transparency and scientific integrity of the evaluation, for example, by selecting reviewers affiliated with different institutions and, whenever possible, from different regions of the country. Such procedures, as argued by Pinho (2005), can help broaden the diversity of perspectives and reduce the influence of personal, institutional, or adversarial relationships, thereby strengthening the quality of the evaluation process.
Once the reviews have been received, the associate editors prepare a draft of the editorial decision with a balanced analytical synthesis that covers the manuscript’s trajectory, taking into account not only the reviewers’ evaluations, but also the observations from the pre-analysis and the journal’s guidelines. This argumentative synthesis is then discussed with the editor-in-chief, who is responsible for issuing the final editorial decision.
The editorial decision, in this sense, is not based solely on the peer-review reports. It is important that the process be grounded in an evaluation that considers the reviewers’ comments in light of clearly defined criteria established by the journal, enabling a rigorous, integrated, dialogical, and transparent process, culminating in the issuance of a final decision by the editorial team. That is, the reviews constitute an important input, but they do not in themselves amount to the final editorial decision. At Ensaio, this commitment is evident throughout all editorial stages, from manuscript submission and pre-analysis to the consideration of peer-review reports. Our regular meetings, in which we promote collective training moments and share information about the editorial workflow, constitute an important team strategy for justifying and supporting editorial decisions, whether rejections or acceptances. Thus, in cases where the editorial decision may diverge from the recommendations indicated in the peer-review process, the reasons are grounded in this entire trajectory, supported by consistent argumentation and conducted dialogically by the editorial team. For this process to occur in a coherent and transparent manner, it is essential that the journal clearly define its evaluation criteria, in line with its focus and scope (Patrus et al., 2016; Pinho, 2005).
CONSTRUCTIVE PEER REVIEW: INSIGHTS AND PROPOSALS
As you can see, dear reader, the peer review process is complex. It requires continuous improvement, such as the standardization of procedures from submission to publication of a manuscript; the careful selection of reviewers; the creation and periodic revision of protocols to guide reviewers’ work; as well as the implementation of policies for training new reviewers within a research field and the proper recognition of reviewers (Smith, 2006). These aspects have been the subject of debate and have provided opportunities for our mutual development as editors at Ensaio. In our 2023 editorial, for example, we discussed the open peer review process, as well as the proposal of the opinion article, prepared by reviewers and published in the journal’s Perspectives section. This step occurs at the end of the editorial process, in the case of articles that have already been accepted and for which the editorial team considers that the reviews were constructive and represented a rich opportunity for advancing the evaluated manuscript. The identities of authors and reviewers then become known, and the opinion article constitutes a reflection on the reviewers’ work, in which dialogues are established about the contributions of the review to the original manuscript (Mendonça et al., 2023).
We understand the opinion article as a form of recognition of the voluntary work of reviewers, as well as having a formative and constructive role for the research field. As conceived by our editorial team, the opinion article is not an ordinary text. It is a production that revisits the main points highlighted in the analysis of the manuscript (reviews and response letter), in order to provide transparency to the evaluation process. The opinion article not only reflects the issuance of a constructive opinion but also points to a broadening of the discussion, following the characteristics of an essay that encourages reflection and dialogue in the field. Thus, it contributes with theoretical and/or methodological insights relevant to research in Science Education (Mendonça et al., 2023).
This movement has led us, within our collaborative editorial work, to further refine what we consider to be a constructive review. In simple terms, this is an evaluation from which “an article can be improved and, ultimately, can be a way to enhance future research” (Hohendorff, 2021, p. 3).
Based on this understanding and on our formative debates, we invite the Science Education community to engage in a reflection that articulates theoretical foundations with our editorial practices, with the aim of strengthening the production of constructive reviews in our field. After all, this is not only about judging the suitability of a manuscript for publication, but about fostering dialogue among peers that drives the construction of scientific knowledge as well as the development of authors, editors, and reviewers. This discussion becomes even more relevant when we consider that reviewers may or may not demonstrate engagement with the manuscript, whether due to the accumulation of multiple academic demands (Patrus et al., 2026) or to the influence of their own perceptions and interpretations as agents situated in specific contexts (Forato, 2025).
In this editorial, as discussed earlier, we acknowledge the workload that characterizes the academic routine of our Science Education community and we value the efforts of reviewers, including through initiatives such as the opinion article. Nevertheless, we believe that it is still necessary to advance the discussion on what characterizes a constructive review. What defines this quality? What elements must it contain to fulfill its formative and scientific contribution function?
A first element in this regard is the reviewer’s attention to the evaluation criteria established by the journal. Although many criteria are widely shared within our community, not all journals have the same focus and scope, nor do they seek to emphasize the same aspects and themes within a research field. This is reflected in the evaluation criteria proposed in the journal’s guidelines, which help editors make decisions about the publication of a manuscript.
At Ensaio, for example, reviewers are guided by specific criteria that are continuously discussed and periodically revised by the editorial team. In the case of an empirical research manuscript, reviewers are asked to indicate whether “the research question is explicitly stated and justified”; whether there is “coherence between the research problem, the theoretical framework, and the methodological proposal”; and whether the “conclusions are supported by the analyses.” For theoretical research manuscripts, other criteria apply, such as whether there is an “explicit defense of a thesis”; whether the theoretical corpus is justified and “composed of reflections and concepts related to important frameworks and works in the field”; and whether the “theoretical argument developed is clear and consistent.” These and other criteria are publicly available on the journal’s website. They guide reviewers’ work and editorial judgment, ensuring greater rigor, quality, and integrity in publications.
A second element in constituting a constructive review is more closely related to how it is written. Reviews may present recommendations with different levels of directiveness (Varas Espinoza, 2015). At a first level, according to Varas Espinoza (2015), we find general descriptions, in which the review indicates positive aspects, requests for clarification, or vague suggestions for change. These suggestions often take the form of questions (e.g., What is the study’s corpus of analysis?). A review that remains entirely at this level of directiveness generally offers little effective contribution to the advancement of the manuscript (Varas Espinoza, 2015). Although we consider requests for clarification to be a potentially dialogical move between reviewer, author, and editor, this does not occur frequently in our editorial experience.
At a second level, the reviewer asks for clarification and suggests the inclusion of elements in a more direct way, but still characterized by a certain degree of ambiguity (Varas Espinoza, 2015). These are comments that, although more direct, are difficult to interpret as either optional suggestions or mandatory changes. As a result, their formulation creates difficulties for authors when revising the manuscript.
At a third level, the reviewer not only requests clarifications and suggests additions, but also explicitly indicates the need for corrections without ambiguity, helping authors to more deeply understand the limitations of their manuscript and how these can be overcome (Varas Espinoza, 2015). In this way, their communicative purposes are clearer, enabling, in our view, greater openness to dialogue between reviewers and authors.
However, a review with this level of directiveness does not necessarily need to be long. As we have observed in the reviews received at Ensaio, length alone is not an indicator of quality. As noted by Cabezas Del Fierro et al. (2018), a constructive review depends not on the number of comments, but on the clarity, relevance, and objectivity of the suggestions made. This level of directiveness, referred to as “actionable advice” (Lee, 1995), specifies what authors need to do in terms of concrete actions. At times, we receive a review stating, for example, “the discussion section needs to be deepened” (Hohendorff, 2021, p. 2). This type of comment is of little use to authors and editors. In such a case, it would be important for the review to indicate which results need to be better discussed and, if possible, to suggest how this could be done (e.g., by recommending complementary readings) (Hohendorff, 2021). In this sense, the suggestion of relevant references can be an important contribution (Hohendorff, 2021), but it requires ethical commitment from the reviewer. Recommending redundant references or references for the purpose of self-citation are unethical practices in the editorial process.
Finally, based on the discussions developed in our formative meetings and supported by the literature, a final element for issuing a constructive review is to avoid hostility. Reviewers should assume that authors have not made intentional errors and should align themselves with the central goal of peer review: to promote the improvement and advancement of scientific research (Elsevier, 2015). Providing guidance that is not only clear and directive, but also dialogical and courteous, humanizes the review process (Hohendorff, 2021).
AN EXAMPLE AND AN INVITATION
Experiences with the publication of opinion articles have provided us with successful examples of constructive reviews. Since 2021, the journal has published this type of production, aiming to align our guidelines with Open Science practices. Since then, we have published eighteen opinion articles. Each of them, despite their specificities, shares the characteristics of what we consider to be original constructive reviews.
The most recent opinion article, published in Volume 27, is an interesting example in this regard (Forato, 2025). It originated from the review prepared by Dr. Thaís Cyrino de Mello Forato, who evaluated the manuscript authored by Aline Mazzarella, Hermann Schiffer, and Andreia Guerra (Mazzarella et al., 2024). This manuscript, already published by Ensaio, discusses how the historical-cultural study of the scientific practice of recording total eclipses at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, within the context of high school physics classes, created opportunities for reflection on the participation and visibility of different social actors in science (Mazzarella et al., 2024). Students were followed over one year, and the article’s data refer to a specific set of six lessons from that year. Materials produced by students during the proposed activities, as well as observational notes in a field diary, were collected. The research was grounded in the Cultural History of Science and perspectives from Science Education for Social Justice. We reproduce below an excerpt from the review prepared by Forato, with the reviewer’s authorization and approval from the authors’ cover letter:
“The first paragraph of page 2 defines the promotion of Social Justice as the pursuit of political and social equity in science classes and society. However, the argumentation shows a logical circularity, using the conclusion as a premise: ‘[...] SJ, insofar as it can mobilize discussions relating science, politics, and SJ.’ To strengthen the argument, it is necessary to deepen the theoretical framework and demonstrate how the learning provided by the proposal contributes to the requirements of Social Justice. (...) The research question is well-formulated and consistent with what was done. Data regarding the implemented proposal suggest that the historical approach reports the involvement of different social groups, participating directly or collaborating indirectly with science. These aspects reflect the content of the research and can be highlighted in the title, keywords, and abstract. It is important to note that, although the knowledge produced is relevant and brings reflections on science, it does not, by itself, guarantee compliance with the theoretical requirements of Social Justice, whether from the perspectives of the turn of the millennium (e.g., Barton et al., 2003, Teaching Science for Social Justice) or the last decade (Ketschau, 2015, Social Justice as a Link between Sustainability and Educational Sciences). Considering the diversity of interpretations reinforces the need to make explicit the adopted framework, how the selected requirements were mobilized, and how they were made explicit (or not) in the data analysis.”
The first element highlighted in this excerpt is the alignment with the editorial expectations regarding the journal’s evaluation criteria. The reviewer emphasizes: the presentation and consistency of the research question; the relevance of the theoretical framework to the content addressed; and the formulation of fundamental concepts mobilized in the study. According to the reviewer, the research question was well elaborated and consistent, but there were some gaps in the theoretical framework regarding Social Justice, which was central to the manuscript.
A second element worth noting is the clarity and directiveness of the suggestions. The reviewer points out a logical circularity, which could be addressed by deepening the theoretical framework. This suggestion was further explored in the review: the reviewer provided examples of interpretations on the topic, emphasizing the need to consider the diversity of the theoretical framework, and indicating how the adopted framework should be made explicit in the study so that its use in data analysis is clearer. The review also helps authors locate points in the text that generated the need for clarification and elaboration, providing examples with direct citations from the manuscript and highlighting passages requiring revision, such as the definition on page 2, the abstract, and the title. Finally, as seen in this excerpt and throughout the review, a proactive, improvement-focused, and non-hostile language is adopted.
These suggestions were embraced by the authors, who proposed ways to address them in their response letter to the editorial team. After the manuscript was accepted, through the opinion article, the reviewer also recognized the authors’ incorporation of her suggestions:
These provocations had a fruitful outcome. (...). The theoretical foundation on SJ incorporated elements of micro-history, expanding the discussion and connecting it with aspects of the episode that were effectively addressed in the classroom, such as the erasure of local people whose work enabled the observation of the eclipse (Forato, 2025, p. 6).
This example illustrates the central elements shared among reviews we consider constructive, culminating in the publication of opinion articles: attention to the journal’s evaluation criteria, clear and directive guidance, and the use of a proactive, non-hostile tone.
Based on this analysis, we invite you, dear reader, to reflect on the question raised by Hohendorff (2021): why become a journal reviewer? After all, we all want our articles to be evaluated with seriousness and integrity, so that the reviews contribute to their improvement without value judgments or hostility. Moreover, we believe that in Science Education we aim for scientific knowledge to circulate and contribute to transforming society into a more democratic and just space, as advocated by Paulo Freire (1967, 2022). Therefore, we encourage researchers to participate in the review process. This participation involves reciprocity and constitutes a learning opportunity, fostering the development of a more critical and reflective stance. It can positively influence the reviewer’s future research, making it more rigorous and critical, as well as strengthen the circulation of knowledge built through constructive processes.
At the end of this text, but as part of an ongoing dialogue that does not conclude with this editorial, we believe it fulfills its role in promoting reflection on peer review and what issuing a constructive review has meant for us. At the same time, this editorial serves as an invitation to the community: beyond submitting articles, to participate in evaluation processes as reviewers.
Acknowledgements
We thank all members of the Ensaio editorial team for their contributions that made the preparation of this editorial possible. In particular, we are grateful to our colleague Dr. Geide Rosa Coelho, former editor of Ensaio, who made significant contributions to the discussions on constructive reviews with our team.
References
-
Adam, D. (2024). The early days of peer review: five insights from historic reports. Nature, 634, 761-762. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03287-4
» https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03287-4 -
Cabezas Del Fierro, P., Meruane, O. S., Varas Espinoza, G., & Herrera, V. G. (2018). Peering into peer review: Good quality reviews of research articles require neither writing too much nor taking too long. Transinformação, 30(2), 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892018000200006.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892018000200006 -
Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature, 532, 306-308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a.
» https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a -
Elsevier. (2015). Elsevier editors share their top reviewing tips - Part 2. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-editors-share-their-top-reviewing-tips-part-2
» https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-editors-share-their-top-reviewing-tips-part-2 - Varas Espinoza, G. (2015). El informe de arbitraje en el proceso de revisión por pares de artículos de investigación: Niveles de retroalimentación según el tipo de evaluado [Tesis de magíster en estudios latinoamericanos con mención en lingüística, Universidad de La Serena]. Universidad de La Serena.
- Freire. (2022). Pedagogia do oprimido (81ª ed.). Paz e Terra.
- Freire. (1967). Educação como prática da liberdade Paz e Terra.
- Forato, T. C. de M. (2025). Artigo-parecer: educação em ciências para justiça social: discutindo atores invisibilizados no processo de construção da ciência. Ensaio Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências, 27, e57327. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-2117-57327.
-
Gross, C. P. (2020). O parecerista: protagonista anônimo da qualidade [Editorial]. Revista Direito GV, 16(2), e1957, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201957.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201957 -
Hohendorff, J. V. (2021). Como elaborar um parecer de artigo científico? E por que devemos ser revisores [Nota técnica]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 37, e370001, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e370001.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e370001 -
Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism.JAMA263(10), 1321-1322. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002.
» https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002 -
Lee, A. S. (1995). Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journal of Operations Management, 13(1), 87-92. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027269639594762W
» https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/027269639594762W -
Mazzarella, A., Schiffer, H., & Guerra, A. (2024). Educação em ciências para justiça social: discutindo atores invisibilizados no processo de construção da ciência.Ensaio Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências,26, e48289. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172022240182.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172022240182 -
Mendonça, P. C. C., Franco, L. G., Massi, L., & Coelho, G. R. (2023). Experiências da Revista Ensaio: Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências com avaliação por pares aberta [Editorial]. Ensaio: Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 25, e42617, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172022240137.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172022240137 - Patrus, R., Dantas, D. C., & Shigaki, H. B. (2016). Pesquisar é preciso. Publicar não é preciso: História e controvérsias sobre a avaliação por pares. Avaliação, 21(3), 799-820. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-40772016000300008.
-
Pinho, J. A. G. (2005). Brevíssimo manual do editor: Considerações sobre submissão e avaliação de artigos, o papel dos pareceristas e do editor de revistas científicas. Organizações & Sociedade, 12(34), 169-173. https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/revistaoes/article/view/10798/7746
» https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/revistaoes/article/view/10798/7746 -
Smith, R. (2006). Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414.
» https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414 - Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol, 20(8), 357-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6.
