Peer Review Checklist
Conduct thorough, constructive peer reviews of research manuscripts. Provides structured evaluation frameworks covering every section of a research paper with specific quality criteria.
Usage
Specify the type of manuscript and your review goals. The checklist guides you through a systematic evaluation of each paper section with specific questions to answer and feedback formulation guidance.
Parameters
- Manuscript type: Original research, Review, Case study, Short communication, or Methods paper
- Field: Biomedical, Social science, Computer science, Engineering, or Humanities
- Review type: Initial screening, Full review, or Revision assessment
- Role: Reviewer, Editor, or Self-assessment before submission
Examples
- RCT Manuscript Review: Systematic review of a randomized controlled trial paper — CONSORT checklist compliance, statistical methods appropriateness, result interpretation accuracy, and limitations honesty.
- Computer Science Paper: Review a machine learning paper checking experimental design, baseline comparisons, ablation studies, reproducibility information, and overfitting/data leakage risks.
- Qualitative Research Review: Evaluate a grounded theory study using CASP criteria — theoretical sampling adequacy, coding transparency, reflexivity, and theoretical contribution assessment.
- Self-Assessment Pre-Submission: Use the review checklist on your own manuscript before submission to catch common issues and strengthen weak sections proactively.
Guidelines
- Reviews separate major concerns (methodology flaws) from minor issues (typos, formatting)
- Abstract accuracy is checked against the actual results and conclusions
- Introduction establishes clear gaps that justify the study's contribution
- Methods are evaluated for reproducibility — could another researcher replicate this?
- Statistical analyses are appropriate for the data type, design, and research question
- Results are presented completely, including null findings and effect sizes
- Discussion distinguishes interpretation from results and addresses limitations honestly
- References are current, comprehensive, and include seminal works in the field
- Feedback is specific, actionable, and constructive — not vague criticism
- Reviewer recommendations are calibrated: Accept, Minor revisions, Major revisions, or Reject with rationale