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 whether a journal or conference is legitimate or predatory using indexing, editorial, peer-review, fee and invitation signals, and lists exactly what to verify and where before submitting.

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.

Coaches an early-career researcher through writing a peer review of a manuscript, asking for their assessment section by section and critiquing the review they write rather than writing it for them.

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.

Scores a batch of conference abstracts consistently against the committee's criteria, with a short evidence-based justification each and flags for borderline cases, conflicts and missing information.

Drafts the author-facing letter for a journal decision already made, from desk reject to accept, with essential and optional revisions, reviewer conflicts resolved and wording that cannot be misread.

Writes the introduction or response-to-review section of a grant resubmission, grouping criticisms by theme, stating each change and where it is, and disagreeing with evidence.

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.