Our step-by-step guide to conducting a review will help you through the processes of reviewing the paper, structuring your report, providing criticisms and recommendations.

This manuscript tries to identify clinical and endoscopic features that would help predict cancer progression after EMR of Barrett’s esophagus with high grade dysplasia.

This is an exceptionally good review and balanced assessment of the status of CETP inhibitors and ASCVD from a world authority in the field. The article highlights important data that might have been …

These suggestions are not required, but by following them, you will greatly enhance the appearance and readability of your document. The text is centered on the page with 1.25 inch margins on all four …

This paper is an excellent example of academic work with minimal practical value. It did not, and by the author's admission, could not measure any change in outcome.

What should you focus on when you review a scientific manuscript? This guide walks you through the process of reading a paper and identifying key things to mention in your review.

Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples for the most common review decisions: ‘minor revisions’, ‘major revisions’, ‘revise and resubmit’ and ‘reject’ decisions.

Note: This is an actual manuscript review, reproduced with the author’s permission. However, character names have been changed and portions of the review have been redacted to protect the author’s …

This sample peer review of a research paper shows how to identify strengths and weaknesses, craft constructive critiques, check citations and statistical claims, and streamline revision for journal …

Is the research presented in this manuscript trying to solve the problem or elucidate the benefits of different components of commonly studied HC traps? Discuss this in the paper.