Peer Review Checklist
Progress
tick as you go- Summary0/2
- Introduction0/2
- Methods0/3
- Results0/2
- Discussion0/2
- Presentation0/1
Summary
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Presentation
Review report
Peer review — 0/12 items checked (0%) By section: Summary 0/2 · Introduction 0/2 · Methods 0/3 · Results 0/2 · Discussion 0/2 · Presentation 0/1 [ ] Does the abstract state what was actually done, not what was hoped? [ ] Is the contribution clear from the abstract alone? [ ] Is the research question stated, and is it answerable? [ ] Is the work positioned against the existing literature? [ ] Could another researcher repeat this from the methods as written? [ ] Are the methods appropriate to the question asked? [ ] Are ethics, consent and data handling described where relevant? [ ] Do the results support the claims made in the discussion? [ ] Are the statistics reported with the detail a reader needs to judge them? [ ] Are the limitations named honestly? [ ] Does the conclusion follow from the evidence, without overreach? [ ] Are the references complete and the figures and tables legible?
Scope and limits
The items are the conventional questions a reviewer asks across the sections of a paper. Ticking one records that you read for it; the checklist does not assess the paper or decide what a good answer looks like.
This is a reading aid, not a review: it stores no submission, keeps no notes beyond the report you copy, and cannot know a journal’s own reviewer form. Export the report into whichever system your review is submitted through.
The peer review checklist walks a reviewer through the manuscript section by section — summary, introduction, methods, results, discussion and presentation — with progress and a copyable report.
What is Peer Review Checklist?
The peer review checklist is a reading aid for a reviewer, organised the way a manuscript is. It states the twelve questions a reviewer conventionally brings to a paper — does the abstract say what was actually done, is the research question answerable, could the methods be repeated from the text, do the results support the claims in the discussion, are the limitations named honestly — grouped into the sections they belong to. Working through the list in order makes a review systematic, and it makes it harder to reach the end of a paper without having noticed that, say, the ethics section or the limitations paragraph is missing.
The grouping matters as much as the items. A paper has a shape, and each section does a specific job: the introduction positions a question against the literature, the methods describe how it was answered, the results report what was found, and the discussion says what it means and what it does not. A checklist that mirrors that shape turns "review this paper" into a sequence of small, answerable questions, which is both faster and less likely to skim past a section that merely looks complete.
Progress is tracked overall and by section, so a reviewer can see at a glance which parts of the manuscript still need attention. The report marks every item checked and includes any notes you have attached, producing a structured summary that can be pasted into a review form or a decision letter and then edited in the reviewer's own words. It organises the reading and the note-taking; it does not assess the paper.
That distinction is stated on the page. The checklist cannot know a journal's own reviewer form, cannot judge whether a method is appropriate to a question, and cannot tell a strong paper from a weak one — those judgements need a reader's expertise. What it can do is make sure the reader asked each conventional question before writing the review, which is the failure mode a checklist exists to prevent.
Nothing is uploaded and nothing is stored beyond the tab: no manuscript, no notes, no identity. A reviewer can work through a confidential submission here and copy only the finished report, and the page makes clear that the checklist is a structure for the reviewer's own judgement rather than a substitute for it.
A checklist is most useful at the two ends of a review. Before reading, it sets out what to look for, so the first pass is deliberate rather than impressionistic; after reading, it is a way to check that the review answers each of the conventional questions before it is sent. Reviews that come back as a single paragraph of reaction with no mention of methods or limitations are a familiar complaint, and working through the items is a cheap guard against writing one, because an unticked item is a question the review has not yet addressed at all. The notes field is where the substance of the review accumulates as you read; the checklist only keeps each note attached to the item that prompted it.
How to use Peer Review Checklist
- Read the manuscript, ticking each item as you check for it.
- Watch the progress by section to see which parts of the paper still need attention.
- Note the items you cannot tick; they are the review's open questions.
- Copy the report, which marks every item and carries your notes.
- Paste it into your review system and rewrite it in your own words.
When to use Peer Review Checklist vs related tools
Use the peer review checklist when you are reviewing a manuscript and want a systematic pass rather than a run-through. When the paper's citations need checking, the Citation Formatter covers the styles the manuscript is likely to use, and when the prose register is the concern the Academic Writing Tone Checker measures that.
If you are preparing your own submission rather than reviewing someone else's, the Manuscript Formatter handles the typography and the counts a submission form expects.
Privacy & Security
This tool runs entirely in your browser — no data ever leaves your device. There is no server round-trip, no upload, no logging, and no account required. Your input is processed locally using client-side JavaScript and is never stored, transmitted, or accessible to anyone else. When you close the tab, everything disappears.