Peer review guideFebruary 18, 2026

Scientific manuscript peer review checklist

Submission-ready • Desk review + peer review

This page provides a step-by-step checklist of the core criteria reviewers and editors use during peer review of scientific manuscripts.

Goal: reduce desk-reject risk, catch submission-blocking (CRITICAL) issues early, and make the manuscript submission-ready.

Explore pre-submission review Submission algorithm Related guides

Authors

Pre-submission self-assessment against reviewer and editor criteria.

Reviewers

Write reviewer reports in a systematic structure.

Editors

Core checks for fast, objective desk-review decisions.

Critical issues that can block submission (desk-reject risks)

CRITICAL (gatekeeper) items: if missing, many journals may reject before review. MAJOR items usually require major revision. Use the tables below with this priority logic.

Priority	Check question	Concrete evidence / output	Short note
CRITICAL	Is fit with the journal's aims and scope explicit?	Target journal scope statement + manuscript "fit" rationale	Scope mismatch is the most common cause of desk rejection.
CRITICAL	Are ethics approval and required registrations complete?	Committee name + date + reference number + consent process description	Ethics gaps are often non-negotiable for editors.
MAJOR	Are methods and analysis reproducible at sufficient detail?	Participant selection + measurements + analysis plan + software/version	"Reproducibility" is a red line for reviewers.

1. Aim and scope

Priority	Check question	Concrete evidence / output	Short note
CRITICAL	Is the research question/hypothesis clear and measurable?	PICO/PECO framing or one testable hypothesis sentence	Unclear aims create “drift” across all sections.
MAJOR	Is the scientific contribution and gap in the literature explicit?	A “gap” paragraph in the introduction + three core references	The “why now?” question must be answered clearly.
MAJOR	Is the target audience and scope appropriate for the journal?	Article type per journal guidelines + scope fit note	Choosing the wrong article type also speeds rejection.

2. Methodological rigor

Priority	Check question	Concrete evidence / output	Short note
CRITICAL	Is the study design (RCT/observational/review, etc.) appropriate for the question and clearly stated?	Design name + timeline + primary/secondary endpoints	The wrong design breaks trust even if results look positive.
CRITICAL	Are inclusion/exclusion criteria and sampling clear?	Flow diagram + numbers screened/included	Selection bias is one of the first issues reviewers probe.
MAJOR	Are measurement instruments valid and reliable?	Scale/device definition + validation reference	Measurement error can inflate or deflate effects.
MAJOR	Is sample size justified (power analysis or rationale)?	Power analysis output or sample-size assumptions	"Underpowered" weakens both negative and positive findings.
MAJOR	Are statistical methods reported at a "re-runnable" level of detail?	Test names + assumption checks + effect size + confidence interval	SAMPL guidelines help standardize basic statistical reporting.
MAJOR	In observational studies, are confounders and bias-mitigation strategies explicit?	Variable selection + modeling + sensitivity analyses	STROBE provides a core item set for observational reporting.

3. Literature currency

Priority	Check question	Concrete evidence / output	Short note
CRITICAL	Are the introduction/results/discussion consistent with the latest evidence and guidelines in the field?	At least three core sources from the last 3–5 years + justified classics	Missing recent evidence often triggers a "novelty" critique.
CRITICAL	Have you checked whether key references were retracted?	A "retraction check" note for each critical reference	Authors are responsible for verifying retracted publications.
MAJOR	Have citations been verified for "claim → evidence" alignment?	At least one authoritative source for each strong claim	Miscited work undermines scientific trust.

4. Reporting standards

Priority	Check question	Concrete evidence / output	Short note
CRITICAL	Was an appropriate reporting guideline selected and applied for the design?	(i) Guideline name, (ii) completed checklist, (iii) item locations	Editors increasingly expect guideline use.
CRITICAL	Does the Methods section fully cover participant selection, measurements, and statistics?	Subheadings in Methods + reproducible detail	Methods are the core of "auditability."
MAJOR	Are results presented with effect sizes and uncertainty (CIs)?	For each main result: effect measure + 95% CI + n	Reporting p-values alone is no longer sufficient.

Quick mapping: RCT → CONSORT, observational → STROBE, systematic review → PRISMA, diagnostic accuracy → STARD, case report → CARE.

5. Ethical approval

Priority	Check question	Concrete evidence / output	Short note
CRITICAL	Does your study require ethics committee approval?	"Required/not required" decision + committee letter	National indexes and many institutions require ethics statements.
CRITICAL	Are ethics committee details reported in the correct format?	Committee name + date + reference number (Methods and first/last page)	Complete disclosure of ethics information is mandatory.
CRITICAL	Is voluntary participation / informed consent clearly described?	Consent form + who obtained consent and when	Under the Helsinki principles, the consent process is essential.

6. Novelty and contribution

Priority	Check question	Concrete evidence / output	Short note
CRITICAL	Is "why was this study necessary?" answered in one clear sentence?	A one-sentence "need statement" in the introduction + evidence of the gap	Without a clear contribution, the editor may not send the paper to reviewers.
MAJOR	Are findings compared fairly with the existing literature?	"Similar studies" + differences + possible explanations	Overclaiming is one of the most criticized discussion errors.
MAJOR	Are limitations and generalizability realistic?	Limitations paragraph + explanation of bias direction	Owning limitations increases trust.

Pre-submission review algorithm

START

Ethics check: approvals, consent, and registrations complete?

Originality check: plagiarism, overlapping publication, authorship appropriate?

Methods check: design, analysis, and sample transparency OK?

Reporting check: guideline checklist and required items complete?

Scope/format check: journal format and limits ready?

SUBMISSION

Explore pre-submission review Reviewer report template

Cross-cutting standards by framework

Core criterion	TR Index	YÖK ethics	Editorial std.	Helsinki	PRISMA
Ethics committee approval and disclosure	✔️	△	✔️	✔️	△
Plagiarism / duplicate publication rules	△	✔️	✔️	△	△
Authorship criteria	△	✔️	✔️	△	△
Conflicts of interest / funding	△	△	✔️	✔️	✔️
Study registration	△	△	✔️	✔️	△

✔️: explicit requirement | △: strong recommendation / standard practice

Reviewer report template

The three blocks below help structure a reviewer report: brief summary, major revisions, and minor revisions.

Block	What to write	Example structure	Note
SUMMARY	Study aim, strengths, and overall assessment	2–4 sentences: aim → contribution → overall decision (revise/reject/accept)	The "why" should be obvious to the reader.
MAJOR	Required changes affecting scientific validity	Issue → rationale → actionable recommendation (bullet list)	Methods/statistics/ethics usually appear here.
MINOR	Presentation, language, formatting, small improvements	Wording/tables/abbreviations/reference formatting	Suggestions that do not change the scientific core.

Related guides

To go deeper on the topics behind this checklist:

Desk reject and editorial triage: What is a desk reject?
Why papers are rejected: Why papers get rejected
How reviewers evaluate manuscripts: How reviewers evaluate manuscripts
Peer review workflow: How the peer review process works
Journal impact factor: What is journal impact factor?
How to write a scientific paper: How to write a scientific paper

Service: scientific evaluation

Evaluate your manuscript before submission. With pre-submission review, spot risks from this checklist early and clarify your revision plan.

Explore pre-submission review