Such a timely topic, just received the reviewers comments on a review paper I submitted some time ago! I wouldn't say it is the worst review I have ever received, but it is definitely not the best. Summary of the paper: a review paper on a topic which is not often looked at, from a particular angle. Giving an overview of various methods used to tackle the given problem and their challenges, but focusing and elaborating on a particular one. 

My paper got peer-reviewed by 4 reviewers. 2 of them gave some point-by-point corrections, 2 of them were more general, borderline harsh and not very constructive at points. 1 of them kindly requested me to cite 18 (eighteen!) papers (with one author in common...), none of them being fully relevant to the topic of the review. 1 of them said they found some parts of the review boring (without stating how I should jazz them up), 1 of them said the manuscript should be revised for grammar and sentence construction (without giving an example of a "bad" sentence).   

Overall I think that although some of the received comments were fair and pointed at areas I could improve on the paper, some of them could be of higher quality, to avoid the "what do you mean" questions and leave me (and everyone in my shoes) with a feeling of "OK, I know exactly what I have to do to improve my manuscript". I believe that the sandwich method of giving feedback which is usually applied to children/students (stating a good point, followed by a bad point, concluding with another good point) should also be applied when peer-reviewing. Avoiding being bitter, mean or pushing our own agendas, but focusing on being constructive, fair and clear on our points for improvement towards the person asking for feedback, can help towards increasing the quality of reviews and decreasing the mentality of "payback" for every bad review we have had in our lives.  

Such a timely topic, just received the reviewers comments on a review paper I submitted some time ago! I wouldn't say it is the worst review I have ever received, but it is definitely not the best. Summary of the paper: a review paper on a topic which is not often looked at, from a particular angle. Giving an overview of various methods used to tackle the given problem and their challenges, but focusing and elaborating on a particular one. 

My paper got peer-reviewed by 4 reviewers. 2 of them gave some point-by-point corrections, 2 of them were more general, borderline harsh and not very constructive at points. 1 of them kindly requested me to cite 18 (eighteen!) papers (with one author in common...), none of them being fully relevant to the topic of the review. 1 of them said they found some parts of the review boring (without stating how I should jazz them up), 1 of them said the manuscript should be revised for grammar and sentence construction (without giving an example of a "bad" sentence).   

Overall I think that although some of the received comments were fair and pointed at areas I could improve on the paper, some of them could be of higher quality, to avoid the "what do you mean" questions and leave me (and everyone in my shoes) with a feeling of "OK, I know exactly what I have to do to improve my manuscript". I believe that the sandwich method of giving feedback which is usually applied to children/students (stating a good point, followed by a bad point, concluding with another good point) should also be applied when peer-reviewing. Avoiding being bitter, mean or pushing our own agendas, but focusing on being constructive, fair and clear on our points for improvement towards the person asking for feedback, can help towards increasing the quality of reviews and decreasing the mentality of "payback" for every bad review we have had in our lives.