What makes a good review? A fictional case study

Abstract

Peer review is often described through principles, best‐practice policies, and checklists, but its strengths and failures become clearer when they are examined through concrete examples. In this article, we present a fictional case study designed to illustrate recurring patterns in reviewer reports, editorial decision‐making, and author responses. The case study begins with a plausible but scientifically flawed mock manuscript proposing a shape‐corrected Ergun equation for pressure drop in packed beds of non‐spherical particles. Seven fictional reviewer reports are then used to illustrate common reviewing archetypes: the Conscientious Reviewer, the Superficial Reviewer, the Hypercritical Reviewer, the Algorithmic Reviewer, the Research Director, the Business Director, and the Citation Collector. The reports are followed by an analysis of which comments are useful, which are disproportionate, which exceed the reviewer's mandate, and which require editorial filtering. Two contrasting editorial decision letters further emphasize that peer review should not be treated as a vote‐counting exercise: reviewers advise, but editors decide. The article argues that good peer review requires more than technical competence. It requires proportionality, ethical judgement, editorial responsibility, and respect for the distinction between improving a manuscript and redesigning the authors' study. The fictional case study is intended as a practical teaching tool for reviewers, editors, and authors seeking to improve the culture of peer review.