Overview of the Review Report Format

The review report structure varies between journals. Generally, an informal structure is followed, while, others have a more formal approach.

Informal Structure

Basically, journals don't provide any specific criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. If this is the case, then you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, gradually as soon as you gain experience, you can rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes even you may be asked to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. You might even be wished to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Basically, you are not able to observe these until you log in to submit your review. So soon after accepting to review the work, it's really worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If you receive formal guidelines, it is suggested get them to direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Even if specifically, the reporting format is provided by the journal it seems important to note that you are expected to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

The First Read-Through

It is important to move along the invitation to review. As you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you are required to feedback on how to specifically improve those sections. ​
You are suggested the first read-through that is skim-read. It is important to note that you will be assisted if you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

First Read Considerations

Keep the following question in your mind - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• Identify the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? Does it add something new to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper written with appropriate format? Do you find the text clear and easy to be read?
• Do you find the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they actually address the main question posed?
• Do you think author has a substantial case, if he is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• What quality do the tables or figures add to the paper? Do they really aid understanding or are they superfluous?

Spotting Potential Major Flaws

While reading the whole paper, it is essential to make the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on. Editors say, "Significant recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome."

Major flaws possibly include these Examples:

• Drawn a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• Discredited method is used.
• Ignored a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

In any case experimental design features prominently exist in the paper, then you should first of all 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, and the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• It is observed that qualitative research always extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

Should present coherent analysis, statistical relevance, and contextualize findings within existing literature.

4. Conclusions

Must reflect aims and be supported strictly by evidence.

5. References

Check accuracy, adequacy, balance, and avoidance of excessive self-citation.

6. Plagiarism & Ethics

Report suspected plagiarism or ethical concerns confidentially to editors.

Structuring Your Review Report

• Summary (strengths & contribution)
• Major Issues
• Minor Issues
• Recommendation (Accept / Revise / Reject)

Professional Conduct

Be constructive, objective, respectful, and precise. Provide actionable feedback with page and line references.