As much as I loathe word counts, it does help folks, especially new to the academy, calibrate expectations. Conference reviews are shorter. It's an in-progress paper. It's going to be talked about at an event. It's probably going through revisions. It may already be under review somewhere else. Keep it short, keep it high level, keep it forward-looking. If you feel like it should be rejected, be direct in these things, "Here are the things that I think are fatal flaws." For a journal article, a little longer. I usually suggest a section per section of the paper. So literature review, methods, results, discussion, probably having an abstract-length comment for each one. It's okay to go long. But I don't want folks to feel like length is better. Sometimes it's just rambling. And again, it's time commitment. A journal review does have more impact than a conference review. Respect the work. This sounds very basic, you know, almost paternal. But what I mean is, your assessment as the reviewer shouldn't presume the author is wrong. It's an assessment. It's possible that you could be wrong. And you have to allow for that in your comments. And so oftentimes, I'll write things where I will state that something is, I think, incorrect. I'll justify why it's incorrect. And that is so critical. It is on you to present the counter-evidence. I do a lot of statistical analyses. So I might say, "I don't like how you did this factor analysis. I think there's an error. Here is the specific error, in my view. Here's a citation that supports my view. Here's how I would recommend you do it differently." And then I'll review the rest of the paper, presuming that I was incorrect. Because you could argue, "Well, your stats are wrong, your conclusions are moot." But then you could also be wrong. And so I might even say in my review, "Presuming that I am incorrect on my analysis of your stats, here are some things I noted in your review." This can be hard for lots of people because it's easy to tell somebody they're wrong. But just like a good professor gives feedback, you have to give feedback as the reviewer, for no other reason than if you want to be taken seriously by the editor or by the authors. You can't just say, "Dan, you're wrong," because then the authors can say, "I'm not though." You have to respect the work. You have to be detailed. On that note, a really critical piece of advice that I give is to mark your comments as major or minor. It really helps you as the reviewer have a bit of freedom to be more nuanced. There might just be something that you don't understand, but it doesn't sink the paper. You might note, "I don't notice anywhere in your manuscript where you include your ethics review." That's probably marked as minor because they can probably address that. The minor/major markings help you give a more nuanced review. They help direct the author's attention. They also present an opportunity for dialogue. How does it feel when someone gives you a list of 50 things you did wrong? And to the author, each one seems equally important. Then the author gets mad because they feel like they're being nitpicked. This is gonna sound like I'm being picky, but I ask reviewers not to ghost the editors. And what I mean by this - academics have a habit of just disappearing when deadlines get under pressure. When it's a high-pressure, variable deadline job, we start to feel guilty, nervous, we don't want to be judged, for various reasons, we just disappear for long periods of time. And in the face of discussions around equity and inclusion and recognizing people's work-life balance, the best thing to do is just communicate. It's just a simple email, "Hey, I'm going to be a month late with this. Hey, I can't come back to this manuscript." It reduces the uncertainty for both parties. And ultimately, it's the thing that keeps us moving. I know not all of us have time for that quick email. But I always tell folks, "Don't hide from the pressure, just discuss it." I've never told a reviewer, "You're fired." Or I've actually told reviewers, "Hey, if you haven't started, don't worry about it. Just let me know, I'll release you from the obligation and I'll move forward. No harm, no foul." And this is the part of the review process that I think especially early-career scholars don't quite understand. When you agree to review a paper, you're implicitly agreeing to review it until it's published or rejected. And that's not always clear. So if a paper gets revise and resubmit, revise and resubmit, you might be on that train for a while. Honor the request, or tell us just right up front. Which leads to the most important best practice: say no. It is completely acceptable. You get your call up to the majors, that first invitation to review for the Journal of Communication, and it feels good. That's okay. It's great. You should feel good. It means that your name was recommended, or your email was honored, or for some reason, we want your feedback on this because you're an important member of our community. You can also tell us no. There are so many reasons why we can't do things. What I would recommend, when you do say no - be proud, don't hide it. If you are worried at all about ruffling feathers, which you should not be, recommend others. And I say that because oftentimes as editors, it really helps to know other people with similar expertise to you that might also be quality reviews. It's also a great way for us to overcome biases in the review process. You might take that moment to throw out reviewers that don't get recognized. Maybe they're not in a North American or Western European nation and so sometimes their reviews get overlooked. Or maybe they're scholars you've met at conferences who were just really competent, but for various reasons, haven't felt comfortable talking to journals and being very loud. You might want to tell them you recommended them before you do it. But giving us two or three names is quite helpful. I know it's a little bit of labor, but it goes a long way in helping the system continue to move forward.