Peer reviewing is something we often learn by experience, though recently there has been an effort by many doctoral programs to provide guidance. This slim and straightforward volume may well help, by giving hints and suggestions.

There are other similar tomes of advice on refereeing (for example [1,2]). Computer science (CS) is slightly different from other scientific subjects, in the sense that most contributions are not in the form of a scientific hypothesis followed by some experimental validation with precise materials and methods. An article by Ian Parberry [3] is widely circulated and presents excellent advice for refereeing manuscripts in theoretical CS, but is now slightly dated. The booklet reviewed here therefore fills a real need.

The booklet is written in a simple and direct manner, and while it is not filled with earth-shattering insights, the ideas presented help, with a focus on both manuscripts and research proposals within the CS field; in fact, a lot of the advice is useful in other subject areas, too.

The contents are divided into three chapters. The first very short chapter introduces concepts and can be skipped by seasoned reviewers, but might be useful for new entrants into the activity, such as graduate students. The authors mainly discuss blind and double-blind reviewing. It seems that recently there has been an increasing interest in open reviewing; this is discussed briefly by the authors.

The second chapter emphasizes the ethical and sociological aspects of reviewing. An important point that is made is that the review should be useful to the submitting authors, whether the manuscript or proposal is accepted or not. The real outcome is not the score or the binary accept/reject decision, but how the reviewer expresses the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. The other topic covered in this chapter is the ethics of reviewing; while most reviewers have the best of intentions, it is very useful to be aware of the many ethical pitfalls, such as being clear about one’s level of expertise, conflict of interest, and confidentiality.

Chapter 3 covers detailed advice, often illustrated by excerpts from reviews. The issues addressed are not particularly in a logical sequence, but seem more like a list of frequently asked questions, or frequently considered doubts. The authors also remind us to make a quick search for plagiarism.

This is an excellent small volume to keep on one’s desk and make available to graduate students, post-docs, and junior colleagues, who can get quite excited about being offered the chance to review but also may need guidance. It will also be of use to organizers of panels who request reviews. The points raised in this booklet can help in engaging a poor reviewer. I am sure I will be circulating my copy to many colleagues.