Scribd
Upload
57 views2 pages

Review Template

This document provides a template for reviewing a scientific paper. It includes sections to evaluate the paper's aim, abstract, title, references, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, and overall structure. The reviewer is asked to consider questions under each section related to clarity, validity, appropriateness, and implications. Major weaknesses identified in the paper should be noted along with suggestions for improvement.

Uploaded by

King George
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views2 pages

Review Template

This document provides a template for reviewing a scientific paper. It includes sections to evaluate the paper's aim, abstract, title, references, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, and overall structure. The reviewer is asked to consider questions under each section related to clarity, validity, appropriateness, and implications. Major weaknesses identified in the paper should be noted along with suggestions for improvement.

Uploaded by

King George
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

​Paper title: Aim(s):

DOI: Review due date: / /


Section Points to Ponder Review comments and notes
● Is the aim clear?
● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it?
● Is the title informative and relevant?
Abstract, title and ● Are the references:
references ● Relevant?
● Recent?
● Referenced correctly?
● Are appropriate key studies included?
● Is it clear what is already known about this topic?
Introduction/ ● Is the research question clearly outlined?
background ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about
the topic?
● Is the process of subject selection clear?
● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately?
Methods ● Are the study methods valid and reliable?
● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study?
● Is the data presented in an appropriate way?
● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented?
● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals?
● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly?
Results ● Categories grouped appropriately?
● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive?
● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result?
● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result?
● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into
context without being overinterpreted?
Discussion and ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study?
Conclusions ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results?
● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they
opportunities to inform future research?
● Was the study design appropriate to answer the aim?
● What did this study add to what was already known on this topic?
Overall ● What were the major flaws of this article?
● Is the article consistent within itself?
Structure your comments into a full review:

Overall statement ​or summary of the


article and its findings in your own
words

Overall ​strengths​ of the article and


what ​impact​ it might have in your field

Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional
information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1.
2.
Specific comments on ​weaknesses​ of
3.
the article and what could be done to
Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other
improve it
inconsistencies.

1.
2.
3.

You might also like