# Peer Review: [paper / work]

> Review form – evaluate the work, not the author. Separate "must
> fix" from "would be nice".

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Work reviewed | [title / manuscript ID] |
| Reviewer | @name (anonymous to authors) |
| Date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Recommendation | Accept / Minor / Major / Reject |

## Summary of the work

[2-3 sentences restating what the paper claims – proves you read it
and lets the authors spot a misunderstanding immediately.]

## Strengths

- [what the work does well]

## Major issues (must fix)

| # | Issue | Location | Why it matters |
|---|-------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [claim unsupported / method flaw] | [sec/page] | |
| 2 | | | |

## Minor issues (should fix)

- [typos, clarity, missing citation, figure quality]

## Questions for the authors

1. [question a revision must answer]
2. [question]

## Evaluation scores

| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Note |
|-----------|-------------|------|
| Novelty | N | |
| Method soundness | N | |
| Evidence quality | N | |
| Clarity | N | |
| Significance | N | |

## Confidential comments to editor (optional)

[Concerns not for the authors – e.g. suspected integrity issues,
conflicts, duplicate publication.]

## Recommendation rationale

[Why the recommendation – one paragraph the editor can act on.]