Peer reviewer
Researchers conducting structured, constructive manuscript reviews. · Turn a manuscript into actionable, evidence-based review comments.
Before you start
- Domain expertise in the manuscript topic
- Familiarity with peer review standards
Tools in this guide
0%0/4 steps
Path artifact
A structured review with summary, major issues, minor issues, and a recommendation.
Finish every lesson and you should have: A structured review with summary, major issues, minor issues, and a recommendation..
Read without annotating
30 minRead the full manuscript once to get the argument before marking issues.
Pitfall
Marking typos on the first read instead of understanding the argument first.Verification
You can summarize the manuscript's main claim in two sentences.Map the argument flow: claims, evidence, methods, and conclusions. Find where the chain breaks.
Pitfall
Conflating 'I disagree' with 'the argument is unsupported' — reviews need evidence.Verification
You can name the weakest link in the argument chain.For each issue: state the problem, explain why it matters, suggest a fix. Be specific and cite examples.
Pitfall
Vague comments like 'needs more work' — they help nobody.Verification
Every comment has a clear action the author can take.Write the recommendation
15 minSummarize your overall assessment, major concerns, and whether revisions could address them.
Pitfall
Recommending rejection when minor revisions would suffice — calibrate to the field's norms.Verification
The recommendation matches the severity of the issues found.You should now have: A structured review with summary, major issues, minor issues, and a recommendation..
- You can summarize the manuscript's main claim in two sentences.
- You can name the weakest link in the argument chain.
- Every comment has a clear action the author can take.
- The recommendation matches the severity of the issues found.