Review Forms

Research Article | Peer-Review Form

Do the title and abstract cover the main aspect of the work?


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


  • 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?
  • Introduction: Does the introduction provide background and information relevant to the study?

Introduction: Does the introduction provide background and information relevant to the study?

  • Does it summarize the current state of the topic?
  • Does it address the limitations of current knowledge in the 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?

Materials and methods: Are the methods clear and replicable?

  • Do all the results presented match the methods described?
  • Are the study design and methodology appropriate to the research question?
  • Is there enough detail to repeat the experiment?
  • Is it clear how samples were collected and how participants were recruited?
  • Are the correct controls/ validation included?
  • Has the 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?

Results: Are the results presented clearly and accurately?

  • Are the results novel?
  • Does the study provide an advance in the field? Is the data plausible?
  • Do the presented results correspond to 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: Do the findings described by the authors correlate with the results? Are the findings relevant?

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

Conclusion: Does the conclusion provide a clear summary of the main points? Does it present the significance of these points?

  • Prove a clear summary of the main points.
  • Present the significance of these points.
  • Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

If the author has provided figures and tables, are the figures and tables clear and legible? Are the figures free from unnecessary modifications?

  • Is the data presented clearly and appropriately?
  • 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?
  • Do the figures and tables include measures of uncertainty, such as standard error or confidence intervals, and the sample size?
  • Do you have any concerns about the manipulation of data?

Recommendations to Editors

  • Outstanding - The paper is well-written and significantly contributes to the literature. No improvement is needed.
  • Excellent - Accept after discretionary revisions.
  • Very good - Some minor revisions are needed.
  • Good - Several minor revisions are needed.
  • Satisfactory - The paper requires multiple minor revisions, but I commend this paper to the Editor-In-Chief.
  • Fair - One major revision and several minor revisions are needed.
  • Poor - Some major revisions are needed, with multiple minor revisions required.
  • Very poor - Major revisions needed to improve scientific validity and/or clarity.
  • Flawed - The manuscript has major flaws that cannot be improved with revisions.
  • Rejection without an option to resubmit is recommended.


Review Article | Peer-Review Form

Additional questions for the review articles.

  • Does the review present an unbiased summary of the current understanding of the topic?
  • Does the manuscript present a balanced view of recent work by active groups in the subject area?
  • Does the review make a valuable contribution to the field?
  • Is there any content that has been previously presented in a review?
  • Does it focus on recent advances in research?
  • Is it a balanced and biased overview of current understanding?
  • Are any recent or important references missing?
  • Is it too focused on the authors' research?
  • Is the interpretation and presentation of results of previous studies accurate and precise?
  • Is it understandable for non-expert readers?