Non-research article reviewer checklist

Is it clear what the authors want to communicate; can you understand the main aims and conclusions of the manuscript?  

Are the authors reporting any original research or new data which would make this unsuitable as a review or opinion piece? 

How much impact do you think the manuscript could have on how people think about this topic?  

How novel or innovative is the manuscript? 

Does the overall manuscript meet the standards of your field?  

Are you concerned about the phrasing, language or presentation? Are revisions needed to make it possible to review? 

Does it express clearly what the manuscript is about? 

Does it contain the necessary keywords to make it “discoverable” by a reader in your field?

Does it contain any unnecessary description or jargon?  

Would it be clear to someone with language barriers?  

Is the abstract a short and clear summary of the aims and conclusions?  

Does it contain unnecessary information or undefined acronyms? 

Does it exaggerate or overstate the conclusions or their potential application/impact?  

Does the introduction 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 current manuscript is necessary? 

Does it clearly define the aim of the manuscript and is this consistent with the rest of the manuscript?  

Has this topic been reviewed recently elsewhere? To what extent does this piece add to the discussion?  

Does it focus on recent advances in research?  

Does it present a balanced view of current understanding? 

Are any recent or important references missing? 

Is the interpretation and presentation of results of previous studies accurate and precise?  

Is it too focused on the author’s own research?  

Is it understandable for non-expert readers?  

Is the opinion of the author well-argued?  

Is the opinion based on current knowledge? If it makes a big leap from current knowledge, is this logical and well-evidenced? 

Do the authors summarize their overall conclusions? 

Are the implications of the findings for future research and potential applications discussed? 

Are any limitations discussed?  

Are any contradictory points discussed? 

Are data and concepts presented in a clear and appropriate manner? 

Is the presentation of tables and figures consistent with the description in the text? 

Do the figure legends and table headings clearly explain what is shown? 

Have you given a brief summary of the article as you understand it, and highlighted the key messages?  

Have you given positive/general 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 article content? 

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 to 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?