Peer review checklist - Editor Resources

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Review checklist

First read-through

  • Is it clear what the authors want to communicate and the direction of the manuscript?
  • Is it reporting original research or is it another type of article? How does this change your report?
  • What contribution does the article make to the field of study?
  • Is the manuscript original?
  • Is the overall study design and approach appropriate?
  • Are you concerned about the language? Are revisions needed to make it possible to review?

Detailed review – Research articles


  • Does it express clearly what the manuscript is about?
  • Does it highlight the importance of the study?
  • Does it contain any unnecessary description?


  • Is it a short and clear summary of the aims, key methods, important findings and conclusions?
  • Does it include enough information to stand alone?
  • Does it contain unnecessary information?


  • Does it clearly summarize the current state of the topic?
  • Does it address the limitations of current knowledge in this field?
  • Does it clearly explain why the study was necessary?
  • Does it clearly define the aim of the study and is this consistent with the rest of the manuscript?
  • Is the research question clear and appropriate?


  • Are the study design and methods appropriate for the research question?
  • Is there enough detail to repeat the experiments?
  • Is it clear how samples were collected or how participants were recruited?
  • Is there any potential bias in the sample or in the recruitment of participants?
  • Are the correct controls/ validation included?
  • Are any potential confounding factors considered?
  • Has any randomization been done correctly?
  • Is the time-frame of the study sufficient to see outcomes?
  • Is there sufficient power and appropriate statistics?
  • Do you have any ethical concerns?


  • Are the results presented clearly and accurately?
  • Do the results presented match the methods?
  • Have all the relevant data been included?
  • Is there any risk of patients or participants being identified?
  • Is the data described in the text consistent with the data in the figures and tables?

Discussion and conclusion

  • Do the authors logically explain the findings?
  • Do the authors compare the findings with current findings in the research field?
  • Are the implications of the findings for future research and potential applications discussed?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
  • Are any limitations of the study discussed?
  • Are any contradictory data discussed?

Tables and figures

  • Are data presented in a clear and appropriate manner?
  • Is the presentation of tables and figures consistent with the description in text?
  • Do the figure legends and table headings clearly explain what is shown?
  • Do the figures and tables include measures of uncertainty, such as standard error or confidence intervals, where required as well as the sample size?
  • Do you have any concerns about the manipulation of data?


  • Are there any key references missing?
  • Do the authors cite the initial discoveries where suitable?
  • Are there places where the authors cite a review but should cite the original paper?
  • Do the cited studies represent current knowledge?

Final checks – before you submit your report

  • Have you given a brief summary of the article and highlighted the key messages?
  • Have you given positive feedback as well as constructive criticism?
  • Have you made it clear which of your concerns are major (significant points, essential for publication) or minor (smaller issues, may not be essential for publication)?
  • Are your concerns specific, with examples where possible?
  • Have you numbered your comments and referred to page/ line numbers in the article to make it easy for the authors to address your points?
  • Is your feedback constructive, and focused on the research?
  • If you were the authors, would you understand how to improve the manuscript?
  • If you were the Editor, would the comments be detailed enough to help you make a decision?
  • Have you checked the spelling and grammar in your report?
  • Have you included your comments in the correct places in the online system – checking that any confidential comments for editors are in the right place – and have you answered all the questions?

Peer review of non-research articles

Many of the same questions will be relevant to all articles. However, articles which do not present original research are unlikely to have a methods section and results but may be more focused on the discussion of a topic. Check the article type and journal requirements if you are unsure.

Here are some questions to consider for some non-research article types.

Systematic reviews

  • Are the search terms and inclusion/ exclusion criteria clearly described?
  • Are the search terms and criteria correct to ensure all the relevant articles are included?
  • If a meta-analysis has been done, were previous studies combined appropriately?

Case reports

  • Does the diagnosis appear to be correct?
  • Was the treatment reasonable for the diagnosis?
  • Are the treatment and outcomes clearly described?
  • As far as possible, is the patient anonymous?
  • Are the conclusions reasonable and not attempting to generalize to wider population?

Methodology articles

  • Is the new method clearly described?
  • Is it possible to replicate the new method?
  • Is there a rationale for why the new method is needed?
  • Is the new method compared to existing approaches?
  • Usually there should not be any experimental results, other than to demonstrate the utility of the methods.

Review articles

  • Is there any content which has been previously presented in a review?
  • Does it focus on recent advances in research?
  • Is it a balanced and unbiased overview of current understanding?
  • Are any recent or important references missing?
  • Is it too focused on the author’s own research?
  • Is the interpretation and presentation of results of previous studies accurate and precise?
  • Has it a valuable contribution to the research field?
  • Is it understandable for non-expert readers?

Opinion articles (also called Editorials or Commentaries)

  • Does the article add to the discussion on a research topic?
  • Is the opinion of the author well-argued?
  • Is the opinion based on current knowledge, or if it makes a big leap from current knowledge then is this logical? What supports the opinion presented?

Download the Review Checklist in PDF.

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.