Sheet 1
Paper Review
  Review Notes
    What type of research is being reported?
    Is the background to the research described?
    Is the literature review up-to-date?
    What is the hypothesis/research question?
    Methodology:
      Is method adequate?
      Are researcher biases noted?
      Was a control needed/obtainable/used?
      Were the data captured precisely?
      Are the data adequetely described?
      Was data analysis systematic?
      Are the limitations of the study described?
    What is/are the result/s?
    What are the conclusions?
    Summary of key points:
    Describe any important figures/tables:
    Context
      How does this relate to other work in the field?
      Is the work copying work elsewhere?
      How does this tie in with key issues and findings of others?
      Does it make its case if it disagrees with consensus in the field?
      What is the significance of this work in the field?
    Other comments:
  Checkpoints
    Conceptual/theoretical rigour
      Clarity of objectives
        Met
        Not met
      Clear & logical argument
        Made
        Not made
      Conclusions
        Supported
        Not supported
    Methodological rigour
      Technical accuracy
        Accurate
        Inaccurate
      Reference accuracy
        Accurate
        Inaccurate
      Internally consistent
        Consistent
        Inconsistent
      Accuracy of tables/figures
        Accurate
        Inaccurate
    Readability/language
      Title quality
        Excellent
        Good
        Needs improvement
      Abstract readable
        Readable
        Not readable
      Keywords accuracy
        Accurate
        Inaccurate
      Structure of the paper overall
        Structured
        Unstructured
      Quality of the language
        Excellent
        Good
        Needs improvement
      Clarity of tables/figures
        Clear
        Unclear
    Contribution to the field
      Relevant to the journal?
        Relevant
        Irrelevant
      Significant to the field?
        Significant
        Insignificant
      Is the research replicable, repeatable and robust?
        Yes
        No
    Originality of the work
      Original
      Not original
    Meets standard of journal
      Met
      Not met
  See:
    https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/how-to-review-articles
    https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/how_to_become_a_reviewer.pdf
    https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html
    https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html
  Recommendation
    Accept as is
    Accept with minor revision
    Accept with major revision
    Reject
  Additions/Revisions
    Does anything needed to be added?
    Does anything need to be revised?
  Possible Flaws
    Does the author seem oblivious to current best practice / consensus in the field?
    Are there any ethical problems?
    Were enough data collected?
    Does the paper use a discredited method?
    Are the data unclear or contradictory?
    Are there possible unaccounted intervening/confounding variables?
    Were the data tables unclear or contain errors?
    Does the author introduce results not delineated from methods?
    Does the conclusion contradict the author's evidence?
    Is this duplicating other published work?
    Are these merely confirmatory data without basis for repetition?
    Is there any plagiarism or copyright infringement?
  How to Review
    Follow any journal-specific guidelines
    Remember to number your comments
    Specify which comments are to editor only and which comments are to both editor and author
    Begin with skim-read for overall impressions and to ascertain whether the paper is publishable
    After skim read, summarise in a couple of paragraphs your impressions
      Write a paragraph that summarises the paper
      Write a paragraph on the contribution of the paper
    If the paper is publishable continue to a closer read
    Work through checklist and review notes (you may need to adapt depending on type of research being reported)
    Do not correct spelling and grammar, but if the paper is unclear in its language, note this in feedback
    If the author needs to make revisions, provide suggestions
    List any literature the author should consult if necessary
    Provide positive feedback for paper's strengths
    Avoid negative language, but include useful, objective criticism as required