 So now you've finished your critique of the paper. You've critiqued either a research-focused article or a non-research-focused article using the very specific criteria I mentioned, and those criteria are also found as part of the module. You can refer to those for more specific detail. So in your write-up to the editor, be sure you're addressing those issues. Be sure you're citing what page or what paragraph has problems. And then finally, in some reviews, there is a section of the review called Confidential Comments to the Editor. You don't need to repeat here what you've already said to the author. Instead, you might say to the editor, this paper would need a lot of work to be able to be published. So editor, do you have the time and the resources to invest in this author to bring this paper together? Or really, editor, if you have better papers, I would not make this a priority paper for your journal. So here's where you can make some confidential comments that are not shared with the author that could be helpful in the editor's decision as to whether or not to accept this paper or to allow it to be revised, what kind of work it would take to be revised. It's in this box that I have had sometimes reviewers alert me that they suspect the paper is plagiarized and they may alert me that they have think, believe they have seen the data from this paper published elsewhere. So do use the confidential box to the editor if you have important information to let the editor know about the paper. Then finally, in the review, you'll be asked to make your recommendation. Often the choices are accept, which is rarely done that a paper is accepted as is. I have rarely, rarely, rarely seen that happen. Another option is revise and some journals may have two categories of revise. Revise with major revisions needed or revise minor revisions are needed and then finally reject. So you need to be very honest with the editor as to which of those you are recommending. It doesn't really help our discipline if you recommend that we publish a paper that is of poor quality within accurate content that's not appropriate for the target audience. So please be honest and give the editor your true suggestion for this paper. The editor then will take the reviews from each of the reviewers and make a final decision. If the editor allows the author to revise the paper, the editor may send that revised paper back to you as the reviewer and ask you to look at it again. Here they will say to you as a reviewer, has this author done what you asked? Have they made the corrections that you wanted? Is the paper better now? Is it good enough now to be published? Sometimes the editor will make that judgment but sometimes they will ask the reviewer to participate in a second review process to be sure the paper is really now on target for publication. So don't be surprised if you get a paper back for a second review. As a reviewer, all the information that you have must be held completely confidential. You cannot in any way duplicate the paper that you have before you. You cannot use any parts of the paper. You must completely keep all of the information highly confidential until that paper is published. If the paper never is published because it was rejected, you also cannot in any way reveal information about that paper. Confidentiality is an important part of the whole review process.