Peer Review: [paper / work]
Review form – major/minor split, scores
使用方法: Reviewing others' work. The summary paragraph proves you read it – authors can spot a skim instantly.
预览
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
- [question a revision must answer]
- [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.]