Organisation and approach to review
|
1
|
Identify strengths and weaknesses
|
31
|
2
|
Identify flaws
|
29
|
3
|
Provide summary of key points
|
29
|
4
|
Differentiate between major and minor comments
|
17
|
5
|
Follows reviewer guidelines provided by the journal
|
11
|
6
|
Differentiate between fatal vs. addressable flaws
|
10
|
7
|
Address all aspects of the manuscript
|
9
|
8
|
Differentiate between general and specific comments
|
6
|
9
|
Identify missing information
|
5
|
10
|
Number each statement chronologically
|
5
|
Make general comments
|
11
|
Determine validity/quality/technical merit/rigour
|
69
|
12
|
Assess originality
|
55
|
13
|
Assess novelty
|
54
|
14
|
Assess importance/significance
|
48
|
15
|
Comment upon relevance to practice/science (clinical relevance)
|
45
|
16
|
Comment upon contribution to the field
|
42
|
17
|
Highlight whether current literature is covered
|
35
|
18
|
Determine timeliness of the manuscript—is it topical?
|
16
|
19
|
Determine whether reporting guidelines were followed (i.e. appropriate selection and adherence by authors)
|
5
|
20
|
Comment upon conceptual/theoretical framework
|
4
|
Assess and address content for each section of the manuscript
|
Title
|
21
|
Title is accurate
|
28
|
Abstract
|
22
|
Accurate/conclusions consistent with results
|
26
|
23
|
Sufficiently detailed
|
23
|
24
|
Adequacy of abstract (in general)
|
18
|
25
|
Use of salient keywords
|
7
|
Introduction
|
26
|
Clarity of study purpose and hypothesis
|
50
|
27
|
Adequacy of introduction (in general)
|
37
|
28
|
Appropriateness and adequacy of the literature review
|
22
|
29
|
Relevance of problem
|
19
|
Methods
|
30
|
Adequacy of methods (in general)
|
65
|
31
|
Study design
|
56
|
32
|
Data analysis (methods and tests)
|
42
|
33
|
Use of statistics
|
42
|
34
|
Sampling strategy
|
34
|
35
|
Clarity and validity of statistical methods
|
33
|
36
|
How data was collected/reproducibility of methods
|
33
|
37
|
Methods appropriate for the research question
|
29
|
38
|
Risk of bias
|
25
|
39
|
Definition and measurement of variables
|
22
|
40
|
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
|
15
|
41
|
Follow-up
|
12
|
42
|
Assess different analysis parts separately
|
11
|
43
|
Reliable and appropriate tools used
|
11
|
44
|
Power analysis
|
10
|
Results
|
45
|
Clarity of tables and figures
|
54
|
46
|
Adequacy of results (general)
|
46
|
47
|
Neutral and logical presentation of results
|
25
|
48
|
No interpretation of results
|
12
|
49
|
Accuracy of raw data/appendices
|
8
|
Discussion/conclusion
|
50
|
Interpretation supported by data
|
92
|
51
|
Adequacy of discussion (general)
|
53
|
52
|
Study limitations addressed
|
22
|
53
|
Research and policy implications (suggestions for future studies)
|
17
|
54
|
Summary reflects contents of the article
|
13
|
55
|
Generalizability of study conclusions
|
5
|
References
|
56
|
Appropriateness and accuracy of references
|
52
|
Address ethical aspects
|
57
|
Consider general ethical aspects and report on any specific ethical concerns (including manipulation of data, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate treatment of animal or human subjects)
|
55
|
58
|
Report on ethical approval
|
11
|
59
|
Check specifically for plagiarism/fraud
|
4
|
60
|
Highlight competing interests of authors
|
4
|
61
|
No need to detect fraud
|
2
|
Assess manuscript presentation
|
62
|
Overall readability
|
41
|
63
|
Presentation (general)
|
40
|
64
|
Coherence/clarity and logical flow of the text
|
37
|
65
|
Grammar and spelling
|
30
|
66
|
Organisation of the manuscript
|
25
|
67
|
Use of language
|
21
|
68
|
Length of the manuscript
|
12
|
69
|
Check adherence to authors’ guidelines (i.e. journal guidelines for authors)
|
9
|
Provide recommendations
|
70
|
Recommendations on publication (e.g. no/minor/major revisions, reject)
|
74
|
71
|
Comment on interest to journal readership/relevance for journal scope
|
52
|
72
|
Complete (numerical) rating/checklist
|
26
|
73
|
Recommend another more suitable journal
|
2
|