Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence.
• The use of a discredited method.
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study.

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups.

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Statistically non-significant variations
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review
• Keep images, graphs and data tables in clear view - either print them off or have them in view on a second computer monitor or window

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these.

Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership and novelty of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality can only be established in light of recent authoritative research; therefore, authors must justify revisiting older topics by providing clear references to recent developments or the application of new data techniques.

Aims in the introduction serve as a logical conclusion to the section, as well-written introductions often end with research aims that should not be surprising at this stage if the preceding context has been clearly established.

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust.

Replicable research involves the implementation of control experiments, repeated analyses, repeated experiments, and systematic sampling.

Repeatable methods should provide sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate the study.

Robust research requires that data points are sufficient in number and free from bias.

Best practice requires that standard guidelines are followed, health and safety are protected, and ethical standards are maintained.

This section should tell a coherent story.

• Describe clearly what the data show
• Reference statistical analyses
• Evaluate trends and significance
• Provide critical analysis of collected data

Discussion should integrate findings into a complete narrative and address inconsistencies.

Conclusion should reflect the aims and be evidence-based. If unsupported by data, revisions should be requested.

Visual data representation is the backbone of research clarity. This section focuses on ensuring that all images, graphs, and tables are not only technically accurate but also ethically presented. A thorough evaluation of these elements is essential to confirm that the evidence provided visually aligns perfectly with the textual claims of the manuscript.

• Check clarity of titles, labels and notation
• Ensure trends support conclusions
• Confirm sufficient data points
• Check for image manipulation disclosure

Suspected manipulation without explanation should be reported confidentially to the editor.

The list of references is a critical indicator of the manuscript’s academic rigor and ethical standing. Reviewers must evaluate this section through three main lenses: Accuracy ensures that central citations are checked carefully to maintain the integrity of the work; Adequacy requires that all arguments are sufficiently supported by including relevant, recent literature to provide a strong foundation; and Balance is achieved by remaining fair to competing authors, recognizing foundational discoveries, and ensuring the manuscript is not over-reliant on self-citation.

If similarities are identified, assess whether they reflect oversight or unoriginal work.

Suspected plagiarism should be reported to the editor for further checking.

Evaluate whether the title, abstract and keywords are optimized for discoverability.

• Does the abstract do justice to the manuscript?
• Are important findings highlighted?
• Is the most interesting data presented clearly?

A well-crafted summary serves as the foundation of your review, providing a clear and objective overview of the manuscript's value. The primary goal is to offer a balanced perspective that begins with constructive, positive feedback to set a professional tone, followed by a concise synthesis of the research findings. By placing the work within the broader context of existing literature, you help the editor understand its significance, originality, and overall contribution to the field, while also transparently noting any major flaws that will be detailed later in your report.

• Give positive feedback first (without exaggerating if recommending rejection).
• Briefly summarize the paper and its findings.
• Place the findings in context of existing literature.
• Indicate significance and originality.
• Highlight strengths, quality and completeness.
• State major flaws or special considerations.

Identifying major issues is crucial for determining the fundamental viability of the manuscript. This section requires a rigorous evaluation of the research's integrity, ranging from the severity of technical flaws and the originality of the work to the strength of evidence provided. By clearly outlining necessary major revisions and addressing ethical or structural concerns, you provide the editor with the essential criteria needed to judge whether the paper meets the high standards required for publication.

• Identify major flaws and their severity.
• Check if similar work has already been published.
• Assess strength of evidence if challenging current thinking.
• Clearly indicate required major revisions.
• Assess clarity of figures, tables, language and structure.
• Highlight ethical concerns (confidentially if needed).

Minor issues focus on refining the manuscript to ensure technical precision and overall readability. While these points may not invalidate the research, addressing ambiguities, verifying citation accuracy, and correcting small factual or numerical errors is essential for a polished final product. Ensuring that all tables and figures are appropriately labeled further enhances the professional quality and clarity of the work for the reader.

• Clarify ambiguous meaning.
• Check citation accuracy and balance.
• Identify factual, numerical or unit errors.
• Ensure tables and figures are appropriate and labelled correctly.

The quality of a review is determined as much by its tone as by its technical content. Maintaining a polite, objective, and constructive approach ensures that feedback is well-received and actionable for the author. By prioritizing clear language for a global audience, using precise references such as page and line numbers, and treating the work with the same respect you would expect for your own, you foster a professional dialogue that helps elevate the final manuscript.

• Be polite, honest, objective and constructive.
• Write clearly for non-native English readers.
• Avoid complex or confusing vocabulary.
• Number points and refer to page/line numbers.
• Indicate clearly if commenting on specific sections only.
• Treat the author's work as you would wish yours treated.

Use confidential comments to communicate serious concerns such as plagiarism, fraud, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or conflicts of interest.

Do not misuse this section to unfairly criticize the author. Write comments as though authors might read them.