Expand guide

README.md

@@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ Specific locations make your comments actionable. "The confounding adjustment in
 
 Write as you would want to be reviewed. Acknowledge strengths. Distinguish between problems that must be fixed and suggestions that would improve the paper. Avoid asking for analyses that would turn the paper into a different study. If you are unsure about a point outside your expertise, say so, so the editor can weigh your comment accordingly.
 
+## Common reviewer mistakes to avoid
+
+Several habits make reviews less useful than they could be. Rewriting the paper in your preferred style wastes everyone's time; comment on clarity only where it impedes understanding. Requesting citations to your own work without a clear scientific reason undermines trust in the process. Commenting only on the introduction and discussion, while skipping the methods and results, leaves the most important questions unanswered. Finally, submitting a review that simply recommends a decision without explaining why gives the editor nothing to weigh. Every recommendation should rest on specific, located observations.
+
 ## Managing your time
 
 A typical empirical paper can be reviewed thoroughly in three to five hours using the passes above. Spread the work over two sessions if possible; a second look often clarifies issues that seemed confusing at first. Set aside the final half hour for writing the report from your notes.