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scientific organization that aims to create specific communities of researchers reviewing and recommending, for free, unpublished preprints in their field.

Follow us on Twitter

Image Credits

The network image was drawn by Martin Grandjean: A force-based network visualization - 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,
  • Is something critical missing?


Evaluation of the various components of the article


  • 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?


  • 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?


  • 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?


  • 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?