First read "Yes"

Writing instructions

Comments to the author

What? Draft the first two paragraphs of your review. The first paragraph summarizes the research question addressed - main aim, main finding. The second paragraph states if and how this study advances or changes current understanding; that is: are the paper’s premise and findings interesting? relevant? sound?

Why? Show the author what their manuscript conveys to their reader (comprehension check: did the reader get what the author meant to say?). Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well.

How? Start your review with a summary of the manuscript by addressing each of the three W's:

• What's new? Is the topic original? Does the study advance or change our current understanding? What is the main question addressed by the research? 

• So what? Are the findings relevant and interesting? Who and what is affected by this manuscript?

• What's next? Does this study lead to new interesting questions/ does it open up new research?

Comments to the editor

• What? Describe which aspects of the manuscript you are comfortable assessing and which aspects should be assessed by another reviewer. Use this section also to share any concerns you have (such as about ethical aspects of the study design, conflicts of interest).

• Why? Few reviewers feel that their expertise is a perfect match for all aspects of the manuscripts. If there are aspects that you feel entirely unqualified to assess, help the editor ensure that those aspects are assessed by another peer reviewer. Your honest self assessment helps the editor make sure that the combined expertise of the peer reviewers assess all aspects of the manuscript. Furthermore, your disciplinary expertise helps ensure that the study meets disciplinary ethics standards.