GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWING TECHNICAL REPORTS 

C OUNTLESS BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS have laboratories or government agencies, or that are 

been published in recent years to alert aspiring being prepared within such organizations for outside 

authors to the need for clarity and precision in tech- journals. Within the Survey, reviewers commonly 

nical writing. Far fewer books address the responsibil- discuss troublesome points with the author of an 

ities of reviewers, even though such responsibilities internal report or with the author's supervisor and 

are second only to those of authors in ensuring accu- if necessary with colleagues in the Survey. 

rate communication of ideas. If the prime objective of 

technical writing is precise communication, what could 

be more pathetic than a failure to communicate? An HAVE A POSITIVE ATTITUDE 

author may miss logical flaws and ambiguities that a Act as an impartial, tactful ally of the author, look- skilled reviewer will catch before they are committed ing for ways to improve the content and presentation to print. The Survey, therefore, sees a thorough of the manuscript. Acknowledge the good points and review as a good review, a light one as a disservice to suggest new insights. Make no personal attacks or the the author, and the reader' Judging the statements that impugn the integrity or content of a manuscript is the reviewer's greatest 

responsibility, but the reviewer must naturally conof the author, and avoid acrimony and sarcasm. 

sider the presentation of the content as well. A good 

review is hard but not hostile. The following guidelines are mostly from Malde (1986), but details of 

Malde's report covered elsewhere in STA are omitted 

here. 

This section concisely addresses the responsibilities 

of the reviewer, but it also contains helpful suggestions for authors. These suggestions are couched in 

dry, direct terms, but they should not be construed as 

dogma. They simply call attention to circumstances 

that commonly confront reviewers and that may need 

attention. 

Manuscripts must not be exploited; they are sent to 

reviewers only to solicit advice. Unless agreed to by 

the author, it is unethical to copy, discuss, or cite an 

unpublished manuscript, or to use the work described 

for one's own research. Some editors of scientific 

journals, moreover, caution reviewers not to contact 

the author, even if the author is a colleague in the 

reviewer's organization, because such contact can 

mislead the author into thinking that problems about 

the manuscript can be resolved with the reviewer, not 

the editor. However, constraints are less rigidly applied on interactions between critics and authors of 

internal manuscripts that are written for scientific 

Reviewing is most effective when the reviewer 

stays with the manuscript until the review is completed. Reviews of internal Survey manuscripts take 

precedence over personal research. Editors of most 

technical journals expect reviewers to meet deadlines 

of 2 to 3 weeks, but more time can be requested if 

needed. 

In fairness to the author, reviewers should substantiate their statements about a manuscript. The following steps are recommended: (1) Read the title and the 

abstract, (2) test whether the illustrations and tables 

are intelligible on their own by considering them just 

after the abstract, (3) read the text critically for content and presentation, making appropriate marginal 

notes and numbered comments keyed to places in the 

text, and suggesting possible improvements in the 

organization and writing, (4) point out any specialized 

topics that need expert review, (5) do whatever 

library research may be needed on uncertain points, 

(6) judge whether all essential points have been 

covered by rereading the manuscript, editing the comments, and deciding which ones are most important, 

(7) finally, write a summary explaining what the 

manuscript contributes to science-or, if it falls short, 

why it fails. 

Guidelines for reviewing technical reports 
ELEMENTS THAT AFFECT THE 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT 

Scientific results are sometimes anticipated by 

previous workers. Authors whose work is not new are 

sometimes unaware of the fact; as a reviewer, you 

should point out the duplication and call attention to 

any references that may have been missed. If a new 

finding is described, consider whether the background 

information is sufficient without repeating already 

published work. Formal reports may repeat, in perhaps more polished form, information from theses, 

abstracts, technical comments, and conference reports 

that have not been formally published. Publishing information that is not wholly new may be worthwhile 

if so doing is important to the times, if republishing it 

confirms or refines known results, or if it calls attention to obscure or forgotten findings. 

Sending a manuscript to more than one publisher at 

a time is unethical, and reviewers who learn of it 

should caution the author or inform the appropriate 

editors. 

Reviewers should judge whether the author's 

discovery has been adequately verified. The usual test 

is whether arguments in favor of the discovery are 

convincing. 

Review papers generally summarize results and 

comment on areas of agreement, contradictions, and 

controversies. The most useful review papers also 

take stock, pare down reported results, put the useful 

pieces into perspective, define what has been 

achieved, and suggest starting points for future 

research. 

Consider whether the manuscipt is appropriate for 

the intended readership, and if it is, consider its 

suitability in terms of relevance to ongoing studies, 

stimulus given for new ideas, and the probable size of 

the readership. The manuscript may have greater interest if the author's objective is to develop a new 

principle, solve a nagging scientific problem, or establish criteria to cope with an unsolved problem-not 

just to describe field relationships or laboratory 

results. Timeliness also enhances interest. 

Editors of journals that try to publish new results 

quickly, such as "Science," tell reviewers that "a 

paper should have news value for the scientific 

community." Such a manuscript might pertain to a 

current topic, raise a new subject, question an established theory, or respond to a point of controversy. 

Scientists judge the worth of new facts or concepts 

by considering how such information adds to previous 

knowledge. For the facts or concepts to be potentially 

useful, a contribution to an established field should be 

either fairly detailed or based on a closely reasoned 

argument. In contrast, when little is previously known 

in a field of study, any relevant finding or idea may 

be worthwhile. All data needed to understand a paper 

should be published, but a reviewer should judge 

whether or not voluminous supporting data such as 

modal analyses, chemical data, stratigraphic descriptions, and repetitive measurements might be better 

placed in an appendix or in a data depository. 

0 Printed with special permission of King Features Syndicate, Inc. 

Guidelines for reviewing technical reports 227 
Consider whether or not the author has used all 

the tools that are available and whether or not the 

research approach is adequately explained. Stratigraphic evaluations may need supplemental measured 

sections, petrographic studies may need supporting 

chemical analyses, geomorphologic analyses may need 

terrain measurements, and so on. Point out any oversights to the author. The manuscript should explain 

what was studied and the procedures used-not just 

the results. Data for an age determination, for example, should describe the sample: its precise locality, a 

brief description of its distinguishing features, its 

relations to other rock units, and pertinent factors 

about the analytical method. The methods used should 

be properly explained. Familiar, published techniques 

can simply be cited, but possible differences from 

previous methods should be clarified. Judge whether 

the methods are reliable and adequate, citing other 

methods when appropriate. 

RESULTS AND THEIR RELATIVE 

IMPORTANCE 

Geological results are commonly given as tables, 

maps, cross sections, well logs, photographs, graphs, 

and diagrams. Such results should reinforce ideas 

presented in the text, but should not duplicate each 

other. A concise text, moreover, is not littered with 

undigested results or with unrelated facts or ideas. If 

the lack of a certain result under the described conditions could be important, point it out. 

SOUNDNESS AND RELEVANCE OF 

CONCLUSIONS 

The conclusions should discuss the relationships 

between the observed facts, should interpret their 

significance, and should tie evidence to inference. A 

mere summation of the results is superfluous. The 

author should explain gaps and limits in the results, if 

any, and show how the results support or contradict 

the findings of others. Speculation should be limited 

to reasonable, testable hypotheses. Be sure that the 

author does not make too much from too little and 

does not ignore obvious alternative hypotheses. Some 

authors fail to see a useful principle in clouds of 

detail. Some digress on irrelevant matters or reach 

illogical conclusions. The most sidcant conclusions 

should also be mentioned in the abstract and the 

introduction. 

After reviewing the content of the report, reaffirm 

that the title is appropriate. If it is not, suggest possible alternatives. Key words make a title more precise. 

Some authors even forget to include an identifying 

geographic name. Delete needless words ("Investigations on"). The use of nouns as adjectives should be 

discouraged ("Ocean Disposal Symposium"). Abbreviations, jargon, and unusual terms should not be 

used either. Cleverly worded titles are unsuitable for 

scientific papers but may be provocative for essays 

and other expressions of individual views. Titles in 

the form of a question or a statement can be forceful 

("Is the Suffolk Scarp a Shoreline?" and "Densities of 

Brines Should be Measured at 4°C"). 

A plainly written abstract invites the reader to 

study the paper that follows. It should not be treated 

as an introduction. It gives the essence of the paper 

but stands on its own; it outlines the purpose of the 

work, methods used, and important results, and it 

gives only the information that is in the paper. 

Authors sometimes forget to include needed facts, 

such as important localities, but they more commonly 

give extraneous details. The reviewer should point out 

unneeded words and ideas. Abbreviations, symbols, or 

acronyms are rarely needed, but if they must be used 

for brevity, the author should define them. References 

are best left to the body of the report; if an abstract 

must cite a reference, sufficient information must be 

given in parentheses for the reader to find the reference because the abstract must stand alone. The 

order of topics in an abstract must be logical but need 

not be the same as in the body of the paper. Giving 

the conclusions first and then the background and 

supporting facts can be effective. 

A good introduction can be organized in many ways 

but should include the following elements: (1) A description of the research objective and the purpose 

of the paper, (2) a summary of previous work, (3) a 

description of the methods used and the responsibilities of the coauthors, (4) a mention of the principal 

results and their importance, and (5) an outline of 

how the rest of the report is organized. The reviewer 

should check that the rest of the report is consistent 

228 Guidelines for reviewing technical reports 
with the introduction. The introduction should be 

written as if it appeared without the title and 

abstract. 

~LLUSTRAT~ONS AND TABLES 

Check to be sure that illustrations and tables (1) are 

consistent with interpretations in the text, (2) show 

what the author intends to show, (3) do not unnecessarily repeat information given in the text, (4) are 

readily understandable on their own, and (5) are in 

proper form. Be sure that the report contains neither 

too many nor too few illustrations or tables. Also ask 

yourself if details in the text could be expressed more 

clearly or concisely as illustrations or tables. 

REFERENCES 

Inform the author if relevant work has been missed 

or, conversely, if irrelevant work has been cited. 

References not directly related to the work are superfluous, although published work of historical interest 

can be pertinent. Reviewers are expected to check 

citations in the text against the list of references, 

noting omissions or discrepancies in names, dates, or 

pagination. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Acknowledgments are the author's prerogative but 

preferably should be given for noteworthy contributions and financial support (p. 12). In Government 

reports, cooperation with another agency is noted on 

the title page. Credits for supporting information 

should be placed in the text where the information is 

used. Contributors who share importantly in the work 

may be listed as coauthors. Some editors require that 

acknowledgments be approved by those whose help is 

acknowledged, on the grounds that an acknowledgment may mistakenly imply endorsement of the 

author's work. 

ORGANIZATION 

Thoughtful suggestions on organization and clear 

writing may help the author better express important 

results and concepts. Scientific papers are easier to 

understand when the findings and their significance 

are clearly explained, when extraneous matters are 

left out, and when elements of the work can be quickly found. Understandable reports proceed from the 

statement of a problem to its solution. A classic 

sequence is: "Introduction, Materials and Methods, 

Results, and Discussion," but no prescribed form can 

be universally recommended. The results derive from 

the approach taken and the methods used. Interprets 

tions are best placed in the closing discussion, where 

the meaning and significance of the results are explained and evaluated. Carelessly organized papers 

fail to state the purpose of the work, explain the 

approach taken, or clearly derive an explanation 

of the results. 

CLARITY 

Clarity and conciseness are improved by following 

simple rules: Favor the active voice and the first person; do not use nouns as verbs; delete needless words; 

use concrete words, not vague or abstract terms; substitute short words for long ones; say what things 

are, not what they are not; express parallel thoughts 

in parallel form; avoid jargon. 

ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY 

Reviewers are expected to catch technical errors 

that might otherwise be missed. Look especially for 

numerical errors and for mistakes in technical terms 

and proper names that may be unfamiliar to the 

editor. If an error is found in a calculated value, ask 

the author to check all the values. A common error is 

a misplaced decimal point. Even when the calculated 

values are correct, check the method of calculation. If 

in doubt about the mathematics, statistics, chemical 

formulas, or other technical usage, explain to the 

editor or supervisor that review by an appropriate 

expert is needed. If many technical terms are used, 

the report may need a glossary. Try to check definitions and quotations. Venfy that abbreviations or 

acronyms are defined when first used; would they be 

better spelled out? Check scales on maps and photographs. Geographic names in the text must agree 

with those on the maps and preferably with names on 

published topographic maps. All names used in the 

text should be shown on a map in the report or be 

otherwise adequately located. 

Guidelines for reviewing technical reports 229