What a Useful Peer Review Example Looks Like有用的Peer Review Example应是什么样
Quick answer: a useful peer review example begins with a fair summary, identifies strengths, separates major issues from minor corrections, explains the consequence of each issue and requests a realistic action. It is specific enough that authors can answer point by point and editors can understand the reasoning.
快速回答：有用的peer review example先公平概括稿件并指出优点，再区分主要问题与次要修正，解释每个问题的影响，并提出可实现的行动要求。内容应具体到作者可以逐条回应、编辑可以理解判断依据。
This page is an example and template page, not a universal journal form. The manuscript, study details and comments below are fictional teaching material. Adapt the structure to the target journal, article type and review form; never paste stock criticism into a real report without checking the manuscript. If you need the complete editorial workflow first, read What Is Peer Review. To decode terms such as “under review” or “major revision,” use the Peer Review Meaning guide.
本页属于示例与模板页面，不是所有期刊通用的固定表格。下文稿件、研究细节与评论均为虚构教学材料。请根据目标期刊、文章类型与评审表调整结构；在未核对真实稿件前，不要把通用批评直接粘贴进正式报告。若需要先了解完整编辑流程，请阅读什么是同行评审；若要解读“under review”或“major revision”等术语，请使用Peer Review含义指南。
Anatomy of a Strong Reviewer Report高质量审稿报告的组成结构
A clear report lets the editor see the decision logic and lets the authors plan a revision. Journal forms differ, but five functional parts are widely useful. Elsevier recommends explaining and supporting judgments so editors and authors understand the reasoning; APA notes that organized bullet points help authors prepare a point-by-point response.
清晰报告让编辑看见判断逻辑，也让作者规划修订。期刊表格各不相同，但以下五个功能部分普遍有用。Elsevier建议解释并支持判断，使编辑与作者理解理由；APA指出，有组织的项目符号有利于作者准备逐条回复。
Restate the question, design and claimed contribution in your own words. This shows what you understood.
用自己的话重述问题、设计与声称的贡献，显示你对稿件的理解。
Name the main strength and the issue that most affects validity, interpretation or suitability.
说明主要优点，以及最影响有效性、解释或适配度的问题。
Address design, analysis, evidence, interpretation, ethics or missing information that can change conclusions.
处理可能改变结论的设计、分析、证据、解释、伦理或信息缺失。
Correct local clarity, terminology, figure, table, citation or reporting problems without burying major issues.
修正局部清晰度、术语、图表、引用或报告问题，不要淹没主要问题。
Choose the journal's available category and make it consistent with the seriousness of the report.
从期刊提供的类别中选择，并确保与报告中问题严重程度一致。
Keep comments to authors and confidential comments to the editor consistent. Nature states that scientific feedback should be transmitted to authors and that confidential remarks should not contradict it. Use the confidential field for genuinely sensitive matters, not to hide a harsher scientific verdict.
给作者的评论与给编辑的保密评论应保持一致。Nature指出，涉及科学评价的反馈应传达给作者，保密评论不应与之矛盾。保密字段用于真正敏感的事项，而不是隐藏更严厉的科学判断。
Complete Peer Review Report Example完整Peer Review报告实例
Fictional manuscript: “A Digital Planning Workshop and Graduate Student Writing Confidence: A Cross-Sectional Survey.” This scenario and every quoted comment are invented solely to demonstrate structure. They are not evidence about a real study.
虚构稿件：《数字规划工作坊与研究生写作信心：一项横断面调查》。此情境与所有引述评论仅用于演示结构，不构成关于真实研究的证据。
This manuscript examines whether participation in a voluntary digital planning workshop is associated with self-reported writing confidence among graduate students. The topic is relevant to research-training programs, and the questionnaire addresses a practical educational question. The manuscript is clearly organized, and the authors appropriately report several null results. However, the current causal framing is not supported by the cross-sectional, self-selected design. Recruitment, measure construction and missing-data handling also require clarification before readers can evaluate the findings.
本稿考察参加自愿数字规划工作坊是否与研究生自报写作信心相关。该主题与科研培训项目有关，问卷涉及实际教育问题。稿件组织清晰，作者也适当报告了若干无显著差异结果。然而，目前的因果表述并未得到横断面、自我选择设计的支持；招募、测量工具构建与缺失数据处理也需要澄清，读者才能评价研究结果。
The abstract and discussion state that the workshop “improved” writing confidence. Participants were not randomly assigned, and exposure and outcome were measured at the same time. The data can therefore support an association but not establish that the workshop caused the difference. Please revise causal terms throughout, identify plausible selection and prior-experience explanations, and align the conclusion with the observational design.
摘要与讨论称工作坊“提高”了写作信心。参与者并非随机分组，暴露与结局也在同一时间测量，因此数据可以支持相关性，但不能证明工作坊导致差异。请通篇修订因果措辞，说明自我选择与既往经验等可能解释，并使结论与观察性设计一致。
The methods report the number of completed questionnaires but not the number of eligible students contacted, recruitment channels or group distribution by program year. Without these details, readers cannot judge response patterns or the direction of selection bias. Please provide a participant-flow description, report the response denominator if known, compare the two groups on relevant observed characteristics and state which recruitment quantities are unavailable.
方法部分报告了完成问卷的人数，但未说明联系了多少符合条件的学生、招募渠道或不同年级的组别分布。缺少这些细节，读者无法判断响应模式或选择偏倚方向。请描述参与者流程，在已知时报告响应率分母，比较两组相关可观察特征，并说明哪些招募数据无法获得。
The confidence score combines six items, but the manuscript does not explain item development, scoring direction, score range or evidence that the items represent one construct. It also states that incomplete questionnaires were excluded without reporting how many values were missing. Please describe the instrument and scoring, report item-level missingness, explain the exclusion rule and include an appropriate reliability or sensitivity assessment if justified by the analysis plan.
信心得分合并了六个条目，但稿件未说明条目如何形成、计分方向、得分范围或这些条目代表单一构念的证据；同时称排除了不完整问卷，却未报告缺失值数量。请描述工具与计分方式，报告条目级缺失情况，解释排除规则，并在分析计划允许时提供适当的可靠性或敏感性评估。
- Define the workshop abbreviation at first use in the abstract and main text.在摘要与正文首次出现时定义工作坊缩写。
- Add units and group sample sizes to the Table 1 column headings.在表1列标题中加入单位与各组样本量。
- Explain what the error bars represent in Figure 2 and name the statistical comparison in the caption.说明图2误差线代表什么，并在图注中写明统计比较。
- Replace “proved” in the final paragraph with wording that reflects the stated evidence.将最后一段的“证明”替换为符合所述证据的措辞。
Notice what the example does not do: it does not attack the authors, rewrite the entire paper, infer misconduct from incomplete reporting or insist on a favorable result. Each major comment names a problem, explains its importance and offers a bounded way to respond.
注意该示例没有做什么：它不攻击作者、不重写整篇论文、不因报告不完整就推断存在不端行为，也不要求得到有利结果。每条主要意见都点明问题、解释重要性，并提供有边界的回应方式。
Major and Minor Peer Review Comments Examples主要与次要Peer Review评论示例
| Issue问题 | Example wording示例措辞 | Why it belongs here分类理由 |
|---|---|---|
| Major: interpretation主要：解释 | “The conclusion generalizes to all doctoral students, but recruitment came from one voluntary program. Please narrow the population claim and discuss transferability.”“结论推广到所有博士生，但样本来自一个自愿项目。请收窄总体主张并讨论可迁移性。” | Changes the scope of the central claim改变核心主张的适用范围 |
| Major: analysis主要：分析 | “The model includes program year but not prior workshop exposure, which Table 1 shows differs by group. Please justify the model or assess how adjustment changes the estimate.”“模型纳入了年级，却未纳入表1显示组间不同的既往工作坊经历。请说明模型理由，或评估调整后估计如何变化。” | Could materially change the estimate可能实质改变估计 |
| Minor: reporting次要：报告 | “Please report the scale range next to the mean so readers can interpret its magnitude.”“请在均值旁报告量表范围，便于读者解释其大小。” | Improves interpretation without changing the design改善解释但不改变研究设计 |
| Minor: presentation次要：呈现 | “Figure 2 uses similar colors for both groups. Please use distinguishable markers that remain clear in grayscale.”“图2两组颜色相近。请使用在灰度下仍可区分的标记。” | Improves accessibility and readability改善可访问性与可读性 |
A short comment can be major if it challenges the validity of the main conclusion. A long list of punctuation edits remains minor. Put validity, ethics and interpretation first, then consolidate local edits so the report's priorities are visible.
即使评论很短，只要挑战主要结论的有效性，也可能属于主要意见；再长的标点修正清单仍属于次要意见。应先处理有效性、伦理与解释，再合并局部修改，使报告优先级清晰可见。
Weak vs Constructive Reviewer Comments模糊评论与建设性评论对照
No location, criterion, consequence or action. It evaluates the authors' work globally without helping anyone test the concern.
没有位置、标准、影响或行动；它对作品作整体否定，却无法让人核验问题。
“The methods do not state how duplicate survey entries were identified. Because duplicates could alter the group estimates, please describe the rule and report how many records it removed.”
“方法部分未说明如何识别重复问卷。重复记录可能改变组别估计，请描述判定规则并报告删除记录数量。”
It centers the reviewer and does not explain a genuine literature gap.
它以审稿人为中心，也未说明真正的文献缺口。
“The introduction discusses planning interventions but omits evidence on voluntary-participation bias. Please review relevant work on that methodological issue; the authors should choose the appropriate sources.”
“引言讨论了规划干预，却未涉及自愿参与偏倚的证据。请回顾与该方法问题相关的研究；具体来源应由作者选择。”
It gives no indication of whether the problem is readability, terminology or isolated grammar.
它没有说明问题是可读性、术语还是局部语法。
“Several long sentences in the methods obscure who completed each procedure. Please revise for clear actors and sequence; representative examples occur in paragraphs 4 and 6.”
“方法部分多处长句使各程序执行者不清楚。请按明确主体与顺序改写；代表性例子见第4和第6段。”
Use neutral subject language such as “the manuscript,” “the analysis” and “the authors' interpretation.” Do not speculate about competence or motivation. If you suspect an ethical or integrity issue, describe the observable evidence in the journal's confidential channel and let the editor apply the relevant procedure.
使用“稿件”“分析”“作者的解释”等中性主语，不要推测能力或动机。若怀疑存在伦理或诚信问题，应在期刊保密渠道中描述可观察证据，由编辑按相关程序处理。
Recommendation and Confidential Editor Note Example推荐决定与给编辑的保密说明示例
Example rationale: The question is relevant and the reported survey may provide useful descriptive evidence. The main conclusions are currently overstated, and key sampling and measurement details are missing. These concerns appear addressable through reframing, fuller reporting and justified additional analysis; they do not require a new experiment. I therefore recommend major revision, subject to the journal's editorial criteria.
理由示例：研究问题具有相关性，所报告问卷可能提供有用的描述性证据。目前主要结论表述过度，且缺少关键抽样与测量细节。这些问题看起来可通过重新表述、补充报告与有理由的附加分析处理，不需要重新实验。因此，在遵循期刊编辑标准的前提下，我建议大修。
I have placed all scientific concerns in the comments to authors. My recommendation depends primarily on whether the journal considers a single-program, cross-sectional survey sufficiently within scope. I found no basis in the submitted material to allege misconduct. If the authors cannot provide the recruitment denominator, the limitation should be made explicit rather than inferred.
我已把所有科学问题写入给作者的评论。我的建议主要取决于期刊是否认为单项目横断面调查符合收稿范围。我未在所提交材料中发现指控不端行为的依据。若作者无法提供招募分母，应明确报告这一局限，而不是进行推断。
Do not reveal your recommendation in comments to authors if the journal instructs reviewers to keep it separate. Editors combine reports with scope, policy and other evidence; a reviewer recommendation is advice, not the publication decision.
若期刊要求把推荐决定单独填写，就不要在给作者的评论中透露。编辑会综合报告、收稿范围、政策与其他证据；审稿人的推荐只是建议，不是出版决定。
Point-by-Point Author Response Example作者逐条回复实例
A strong response uses Comment → Direct answer → Change or reason → Location → Evidence. Preserve the reviewer's numbering, quote or accurately paraphrase each point, and make the revised text easy to find. Courtesy helps, but evidence and traceability do the real work.
高质量回复使用评论 → 直接回答 → 修改或理由 → 位置 → 证据。保留审稿人编号，引用或准确转述每一点，并让修订内容容易找到。礼貌很重要，但证据与可追踪性才是真正核心。
Reviewer comment: “The manuscript uses causal language although the design is cross-sectional and participants self-selected.”
Author response: We agree that the original wording exceeded the design. We replaced “improved,” “effect” and “led to” with associative language in the abstract, results and discussion. We also added self-selection and unmeasured prior motivation as limitations. The revised abstract conclusion now reads: “Workshop participation was associated with higher self-reported writing confidence in this volunteer sample; longitudinal or experimental research is needed to evaluate causality.” Changes appear on page 2, lines 31–34, and page 14, lines 302–315.
审稿人意见：“稿件使用了因果措辞，但研究为横断面设计且参与者自行选择。”
作者回复：我们同意原措辞超出了研究设计支持范围。我们已在摘要、结果与讨论中把“提高”“效应”和“导致”替换为相关性表述，并新增自我选择与未测量既往动机作为局限。修订后的摘要结论为：“在该志愿样本中，参加工作坊与更高的自报写作信心相关；评估因果关系仍需纵向或实验研究。”修改见第2页31–34行及第14页302–315行。
Reviewer comment: “Please exclude all first-year students because they have limited writing experience.”
Author response: We appreciate the concern about experience. We did not exclude first-year students because they were eligible under the prespecified population and removing them after seeing the data would change the study question. Instead, we now report program year by group, adjust the exploratory model for program year and provide a sensitivity analysis excluding first-year students. The direction of the association is unchanged, although uncertainty increases. We describe this decision on page 8, lines 166–174, and report the sensitivity result in Supplementary Table S2.
审稿人意见：“请排除所有一年级学生，因为其写作经验有限。”
作者回复：感谢您对经验差异的关注。我们没有排除一年级学生，因为他们符合预先设定的研究总体，在查看数据后删除会改变研究问题。我们改为按组报告年级，在探索性模型中调整年级，并提供排除一年级学生的敏感性分析。相关方向未改变，但不确定性增加。该决定见第8页166–174行，敏感性结果见补充表S2。
Never claim a change was made when it was not. If a requested analysis is impossible, say which data are unavailable, explain why the request cannot be completed and state how you bounded the claim. Editors can evaluate a transparent limitation; they cannot evaluate a hidden one.
切勿声称已完成实际未做的修改。若请求的分析无法完成，应说明缺少哪些数据、为何无法执行，并说明如何收窄主张。编辑可以评价透明局限，却无法评价被隐藏的局限。
Reusable Peer Review Report Template可套用的Peer Review报告模板
Copy the structure, not the sample verdict. Replace every bracketed field with manuscript-specific evidence and remove any section the journal does not request.
请复制结构而非示例结论。把每个方括号字段替换为稿件特定证据，并删除期刊未要求的部分。
Peer Review Example Quality ChecklistPeer Review Example质量检查表
- Journal fit: you followed the article-type rubric and separated author-facing and confidential fields correctly.期刊适配：遵循文章类型评价标准，并正确区分给作者与保密字段。
- Priority: the first major comments address validity, interpretation, ethics or reproducibility—not punctuation.优先级：前几条主要意见处理有效性、解释、伦理或可重复性，而非标点。
- Traceability: every material concern names a location or evidence and every requested change has a clear purpose.可追踪性：每项实质问题都有位置或证据，每项修改要求都有明确目的。
- Feasibility: requests are proportionate to the study and distinguish repairable errors from inherent limitations.可实现性：要求与研究规模相称，并区分可修复错误与固有局限。
- Tone: comments evaluate the manuscript, not the authors' character, competence or motives.语气：评论评价稿件，而非作者品格、能力或动机。
- Confidentiality: do not upload an unpublished manuscript to an external AI system or share it unless journal policy explicitly permits the tool and safeguards.保密：除非期刊政策明确允许并规定保障措施，否则不要把未发表稿件上传至外部AI系统或分享。
- Consistency: the recommendation matches the seriousness and apparent reparability of the comments.一致性：推荐决定与意见严重程度及可修复性一致。
Publisher rules on generative AI, confidentiality and disclosure change. Check the target journal's current reviewer policy before using any tool. Elsevier and Nature both state that reviewers should not upload manuscripts into generative AI systems; journal-specific instructions remain controlling.
出版社关于生成式AI、保密与披露的规则可能变化。使用任何工具前，应检查目标期刊当前审稿人政策。Elsevier与Nature均指出审稿人不应把稿件上传到生成式AI系统；最终以具体期刊要求为准。
Prepare the journal policy URL, article type, review form, manuscript scope and questions about fit. Journal Fit Navigator can help organize comparison evidence when choosing or checking a target journal; it does not read confidential manuscripts, write a review for you, replace editors or guarantee an outcome. Verify every requirement on the journal's official site.
准备期刊政策URL、文章类型、审稿表、稿件范围与适配问题。投刊罗盘可在选择或核对目标期刊时协助整理比较证据；它不会读取保密稿件、代替你完成审稿、取代编辑或保证结果。请在期刊官网核验每项要求。
Peer Review Example FAQPeer Review Example常见问题
It summarizes the manuscript fairly, separates major from minor issues, explains why each concern matters, points to evidence or a location, and asks for a feasible response without prescribing a preferred result.
它公平概括稿件，区分主要与次要问题，解释每项问题的重要性，指出证据或位置，并提出可实现的回应要求，而不预设偏好的研究结果。
Begin with a brief neutral summary of the manuscript and its contribution, followed by an overall assessment that identifies the most important strengths and limitations.
先中性概括稿件及其贡献，再给出总体评价，指出最重要的优点与局限。
“The conclusion describes a causal effect, but the cross-sectional design establishes association only. Please revise the causal wording throughout and state this design limitation in the discussion.”
“结论描述了因果效应，但横断面设计只能建立相关性。请通篇修订因果措辞，并在讨论中说明这一设计局限。”
Follow the journal form. If a separate recommendation field exists, place the recommendation there and keep comments to authors focused on evidence and improvements.
应遵循期刊表格。若有单独推荐字段，把决定填在那里，让给作者的评论聚焦证据与改进。
Acknowledge the concern, state the disagreement respectfully, support the position with evidence or policy, explain what clarification was added, and give the exact manuscript location.
先承认对方关注点，再礼貌说明不同意见，用证据或政策支持立场，解释新增澄清，并给出稿件准确位置。
Peer Review Comment Formula: O–L–I–R审稿评论公式：观察—定位—影响—请求
Build each material comment with four parts: Observation → Location or evidence → Impact → Request. The formula keeps a review focused on the work rather than the authors and makes the requested action testable.
每条实质评论可由四部分组成：观察 → 位置或证据 → 影响 → 请求。这套公式让评论聚焦作品而非作者，并使行动要求可以核验。
Observation: The discussion describes the workshop as causing higher confidence. Location: This claim appears in the abstract conclusion and discussion, although participants self-selected into groups. Impact: Selection differences could explain the association, so causal wording overstates the design. Request: Please revise causal language to associative language and add self-selection as a limitation.
观察：讨论部分称工作坊导致信心提高。定位：该主张出现在摘要结论与讨论中，但参与者自行选择分组。影响：选择差异可能解释这种相关性，因此因果措辞超出设计支持范围。请求：请把因果措辞改为相关性措辞，并把自我选择列为局限。
A reviewer may ask for a new analysis when it is necessary and possible with the existing study. Do not demand a completely new project merely to make the paper resemble the study you would have designed. When a limitation cannot be repaired, request transparent reporting and narrower interpretation.
当新分析对判断必要且可用现有研究完成时，审稿人可以提出要求；但不要仅为让论文变成自己会设计的研究而要求开展全新项目。若局限无法修复，应要求透明报告并收窄解释范围。