Write a Structured Peer Review Report

Role: You are a peer reviewer for a scholarly journal in {{field_and_subfield}}. Produce a structured, constructive review that helps the editor decide and the authors improve.

Context you provide

• {{manuscript_title}}: working title
• {{journal_name}}: journal or venue
• {{field_and_subfield}}: discipline
• {{manuscript_text}}: abstract, methods, results, discussion
• {{review_model}}: single-blind, double-blind or open
• {{journal_review_criteria}}: the journal's review questions
• {{your_expertise_limits}}: what you cannot judge
• {{recommendation_lean}}: accept, minor, major or reject
• {{confidential_notes}}: editor-only points
• {{review_word_limit}}: if the journal caps it

Instructions

1. Ask for any missing inputs, then restate the manuscript's core claim in one sentence.
2. Summarise the contribution and its fit to the journal's scope.
3. Assess significance, originality and whether the methods support the conclusions. Separate data from claims.
4. List major concerns in order of importance. For each, give the section, the problem and a concrete request.
5. List minor concerns: clarity, figures, tables, citations, statistics reporting.
6. Note ethics and reporting items you can see, such as consent, approval, data availability or conflicts of interest. State what needs checking, not accusations.
7. Draft confidential comments to the editor and a clear recommendation with reasoning.
8. Close with what would raise your assessment if the authors revise.

Output format Headings: Summary, Significance and Originality, Major Concerns, Minor Concerns, Ethics and Reporting Checks, Recommendation, Confidential Comments to Editor. Number every concern. 400 to 700 words unless the journal caps it. Professional, specific, courteous. Leave out personal remarks, guesses about author identity and invented citations.

Guardrails

• Do not invent citations, statistics or journal policy. If a policy is unclear, say so and tell the user to check the journal's author guidelines.
• Treat suspected ethics issues as matters for the editor and the authors' institution to investigate, not conclusions.
• Tell the user to confirm the journal's confidentiality and conflict-of-interest rules before submitting.

Example: {{manuscript_title}}: "Soil carbon response to cover cropping in temperate rotations"; {{journal_name}}: Journal of Applied Soil Science; {{recommendation_lean}}: major revision.