Peer Community In

“Peer Community in” (PCI) is a non-profit scientific organization that aims to create specific communities of researchers reviewing and recommending, for free, unpublished preprints in their field.

Contact

contact@peercommunityin.org
Follow us on Twitter
LEGAL NOTICE

Image Credits

The network image was drawn by Martin Grandjean: A force-based network visualization - http://www.martingrandjean.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Graphe3.png. CC BY-SA.

Questionnaire for reviewers

Below we list a series of questions to help you conduct your review. You do not have to answer these questions. However, if you use them as a guide for your review report, they will help us to develop a review process that is comprehensive and at least partly consistent between reviewers.
We tested this questionnaire with a group of 10 reviewers. They all told us that it was a great tool to produce a complete and structured review report.

 

General questions

  • Did you read the “guide for reviewers”? (see the Help menu of the thematic PCI or the dedicated blog post)
  • Is the manuscript well written?
  • Is the description of the rationale and methods clear and comprehensive?
  • Are there flaws in the design of the research?
  • Are there flaws in the analysis?
  • Are there flaws in the interpretation of results?
  • Do you have concerns about ethics or scientific misconduct?
  • Did you detect a spin on the results, discussion or abstract? (a spin is a way of twisting the reporting of results such that the true nature and range of the findings are not faithfully represented, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710755115)
  • Is something critical missing?

 

Evaluation of the various components of the article

Title/abstract/introduction

  • Does the title clearly reflect the content of the article?
  • Does the abstract present the supported findings of the study concerned and no other?
  • Does the introduction clearly explain the motivation for the study?
  • Is the research question/hypothesis/prediction clearly presented?
  • Does the introduction build on relevant recent and past research performed in the field?

Materials and Methods

  • Are the methods and analysis described in sufficient detail to allow replication by other researchers?
  • Is the experimental plan consistent with the questions?
  • Are the statistical analyses appropriate?
  • Have you evaluated the statistical scripts and program codes?

Results

  • Have you checked the raw data and their associated description?
  • Have you run the data transformations and statistical analyses and checked that you get the same results?
  • To the best of your ability, can you detect any obvious manipulation of data (e.g. removal)?
  • Do the statistical results strongly support the conclusion (p< 10-3 or BF>20)?
  • In the case of negative results, was a statistical power analysis (or an appropriate Bayesian analysis) performed?
  • Did the authors conduct many experiments but retain only some of the results?

Discussion

  • Do the interpretations of the analysis go too far?
  • Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results?
  • Does the discussion take into account relevant recent and past research performed in the field?
  • Did the authors test many hypotheses but consider only a few in the discussion?

References

  • Are all the references appropriate?
  • Are the necessary references present?
  • Do the references seem accurate?

Tables and figures

  • Are the tables and figures clear and comprehensive?
  • Are all the tables/figures useful?
  • Are there too many/too few tables and figures?
  • Do the tables and figures have suitable captions such that they can be understood without having to read the main text?

 

Peer review of the revised version of a preprint

  • Did the authors correctly address all your comments?
  • Do you disagree with the other reviewer(s) and agree with the authors’ explanation and defense of their original article?