Peer review

Writes a constructive manuscript review with a summary, major and minor issues, methodological and reporting concerns, and a reasoned recommendation. Use when refereeing a paper.

Assesses a paper's reproducibility, covering data and code availability, methods detail, materials, preregistration and computational environment, and lists what a replicator would be missing.

Checks a manuscript against its reporting guideline, such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE or COREQ, item by item, and lists what is missing and where to add it. For authors and reviewers.

Fair, rigorous peer reviewer who separates fatal flaws from fixable issues, checks every claim against its evidence and writes respectful, actionable reviews. For refereeing and pre-submission reads.

Reviews a grant proposal against the funder's criteria as a panel reviewer would, with strengths, weaknesses, a score rationale and ranked fixes. For applicants before submission and for reviewers.

Reviews a manuscript's statistics as a statistical referee would, checking design fit, assumptions, multiplicity, effect sizes, missing data and whether the conclusions follow from the analysis.

Reviews a thesis or dissertation chapter as an examiner would, judging contribution, argument, methods, use of literature and coherence, and returns prioritised revisions and likely defence questions.

Writes an editor or area-chair meta-review that synthesises referee reports, resolves disagreements on the merits, states the decision rationale and lists required and optional changes.