Review checklist

Before you start#

• I have no conflict of interest with the authors or the subject matter, or I have declared one to the handling editor.
• The topic is inside my area of expertise.
• I have the copy provided for review, not a copy I already had access to, and I will not seek out the authors' identity.
• I can complete this review by the due date, or I have told the editor a realistic one.

The manuscript#

• The research question is stated clearly and is significant to the field.
• The methodology is sound and described in enough detail to be judged.
• The literature review is adequate, current, and engages with conflicting prior work.
• The writing is clear and organised in the shape the field expects.

The evidence#

• The results are supported by the data actually presented, not just asserted in the discussion.
• Figures and tables are legible, labelled, and consistent with the numbers quoted in the text.
• Uncertainty, error bars or confidence intervals are present where the field would expect them.
• I have judged whether this submission needs a dedicated statistics review, and said so in my comments to the editor.
• Data, code or parameters needed to reproduce the work are available, deposited, or their absence is explained.
• The originality of the contribution is clear — I can state in one sentence what is new.

The write-up#

• My comments to the author are specific enough to act on — they name a section, figure or equation rather than describing a general impression.
• My comments to the author contain nothing that could identify me.
• Anything the author should not see — suspected identity leaks, concerns about data integrity, a franker rationale for my recommendation — is in the confidential comments to the editor, not the comments to the author.
• I have declared any competing interests, even minor ones, in the field provided for them.

Before you submit your review#

• My recommendation matches what my comments actually say — a "Revisions Required" recommendation should not be paired with comments that read as a rejection, or the reverse.
• I have re-read my comments to the author once, as if I were the author receiving them cold.
• I am ready to submit — a submitted review is sent to the handling editor and cannot be edited afterwards.