My personal peer review checklist (for law related papers)

For the purpose of this exercise, I put more emphasis on essays, because they are more
common in my field (I am a lawyer). For legal issues, quantitative studies are not common.
Instead, there are more focus on preexisting literature review (such as doctrine, legislation and
regulation, and much more legal cases or precedents).

I think that the idea of a good checklist in this case, is to keep things as much simple as possible,
a conviction that droves me to synthesize the checklist more than I observe in other fields, in
order to manage it with more fluency.

Community

Criteria (concern) Proposing a way of dealing with this concern Valuation

Am I the right person Choose assignments wisely, being respectful and - 0 +
to review the professional, and honoring the confidentiality of the
manuscript? review process. I should only review a manuscript if it
matches my area of expertise. If I am not sure I have
the right expertise, of if I think could provide an expert
evaluation of one aspect of the manuscript but not all
of it, I must get in contact with the journal for
indications.
Do I have enough Do not overcommit. Check journal guidelines and - 0 +
time to do the adjust my workflow. If I want to review but I might I
review by the might need some extra time to get it done, I must let
journal’s deadline? the editors know as soon as possible so that they can
alert the author or contact another reviewer if
needed.
Can I provide an Before responding the invitation, I must check if there - 0 +
objective, honest have been present or past collaborations with any
and unbiased authors, or other potentially competing interests, e.g.,
review? financial, personal or professional (no matter if you
think I have it one but it will not compromise my
objectivity), getting in touch with the journal for final
decision.
Does the manuscript Review the journal guidelines and publication criteria, - 0 +
fit the mission of the looking for a mission statement (explicit or implicit)
journal? and if there is a viable alignment between the
manuscript and this mission.
Is the manuscript of Review the journal guidelines and publication criteria, - 0 +
possible interest of identifying the target audience of the journal (readers,
the journal readers? sponsors and other stakeholders), and the possible
one of the author according to the abstract. Compare
both and see if they fit together. The audience must
 be identified (Are they specialists in the specific field?
Are they cross-disciplinary? Are they non-specialists?
Review structure and Make sure I know how my review will need to be - 0 +
format of peer formatted. Does the journal want me to respond to
review report specific questions in a structured reviewer form? Will I
need to recommend a specific decision action, e.g.,
major revision? I might also want to find out whether
the journal has an open review option, deciding if I
will sign my name to the review report.

Content

Criteria (concern) Proposing a way of dealing with this concern Valuation

Overall impression (First read-through: gaining an overview)
Is it clear what the Prepare a text file with the structure of review. - 0 +
author want to Read the entire paper, taking notes. Get an overall
communicate? impression of the paper: motivation, approach,
Is it clear the overview of results and conclusions. Check all figures
direction of the and tables, asking if they complement the approach,
manuscript? results section and conclusions.
Is the manuscript Make sure I read the entire manuscript, including the - 0 +
clear and concise? figures, at least twice. It is generally a good idea to
Is the manuscript read start to finish, but this is not always the case. - 0 +
well organized? One way to read the manuscript (taking notes as I go
Is the manuscript along) is: 1) Read the abstract and introduction to get - 0 +
free of jargon? a sense of the overall context and approach; 2) Look
Is it reporting at the figures and tables carefully in conjunction with - 0 +
original research or the results; 3) Read the conclusions; 4) Then read the
is it another type of whole article from the beginning to the end.
article? If the author writes for a general audience, or the
What contribution research could be of interest to the public, he must - 0 +
does the article keep the language as straightforward as possible. If he
make to the field of is writing in English, the author must remember that
study? not all of the readers will necessary be native English
Is the overall study speakers. - 0 +
design and approach Concerning about the readability, is the English or
appropriate? writing so bad that I cannot understand the
Am I concerned arguments? If this is the case, reply the editor I cannot - 0 +
about the language give the paper a fair review at this stage, and suggest
and readability? to withdraw the paper to improve the English.
Identify goals, method, findings and relevance.
In my own words, summarize the main research
question, claims, and conclusions of the study. Provide
context for how this research fits within the existing
literature. Discuss the manuscript’s strengths and
weaknesses, and my overall recommendation.
 It is important to define if I prefer reading on screen
(laptop or desktop, on a mobile device, smartphone or
tablet) or holding a hard copy.
For the title
Does the title The title is the first thing anyone who reads an article - 0 +
express clearly, the is going to see. Considering the fact that researchers
content of the and reviewers are more and more busy, good titles
manuscript? help readers find the author research, and decide
Does the title whether to keep reading. Search engines use titles to - 0 +
accurately highlight retrieve relevant articles based on users’ keyword
the importance of searches.
the study? Once readers find the article, they will use its title as
Does the title the first filter to decide if the research is what they are - 0 +
contain any looking for.
unnecessary A strong and specific title is the first step toward
description? citations, inclusion in meta-analyses, and influencing
the field of interest. A good title must be concise and
informative, be written for the intended audience,
entice the reader, incorporate important keywords,
and it must be written in sentence case. It must never
be written as a question, nor sensationalize the
research.
For the abstract
Is the abstract a The main challenge facing when writing an abstract is - 0 +
short and clear keeping it concise and fitting in all the information
summary of the needed. Depending on the subject area, the journal
aims, key methods, may require a structured abstract, following specific
important findings headings.
and conclusions? A structured abstract helps the readers to understand
Does the abstract the study more easily. - 0 +
include enough If the journal does not require a structured abstract it
information to stand useful to follow a format as one paragraph without
alone by itself? headings, which includes: 1) Background or
Does the abstract introduction (A brief of 2 or 3 sentences); 2) - 0 +
contain unnecessary Objectives or aims (What is the study and why the
information? author did do it? Stating the research question); 3)
Methods (What did the author do? Including
information about the methods, but avoiding the low-
level specifics); 4) Results (What did the author found?
Key findings of the study) and 5) Conclusions (What
did the author conclude? Importance of the findings,
and its significance for the area of research.
For the introduction
Does the The introduction leads the reader from a general - 0 +
introduction clearly subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. It
summarize the establishes the scope, context, and significance of the
current state of the research by summarizing current understanding and
topic? background information about the topic (without
Does the obligating the readers to investigate previous - 0 +
introduction clearly publications), stating the purpose of the work in the
explain why the form of the research problem supported by a
study was hypothesis or a set of questions. In addition,
necessary? explaining briefly the methodological approach used
Does the to examine the research problem, highlighting the - 0 +
introduction clearly potential outcomes revealed and outlining the
explain why the remaining structure and organization of the paper.
study was A good introduction begins with an attention grabber
necessary? or hook. It has at least three sentences, and ends with
Does the a clear thesis statement. - 0 +
introduction clearly A well-written introduction is important because, as
explain why the aim well as happens with the abstract, the author will
of the study and if never get a second chance to make a good first
this is consistent impression.
with the rest of the The author should write the introduction section in
manuscript? the simple present tense.
Is the research - 0 +
question clear and
appropriate?
Is it possible to - 0 +
suggest an alternate
way to begin the
essay?

For the Methods

Are the study design For legal issues, quantitative studies are not common. - 0 +
and methods Instead, there are more focus on preexisting literature
appropriate for the review (such as doctrine, legislation and regulation,
research question? and much more legal cases or precedents).
Is there enough In the events that includes a Methods section, I must - 0 +
detail to repeat the check method (i.e., equations if necessary, setting the
experiments? experiment, data collection, details needed for
Is it clear how reproducing results, and if that is not possible, why - 0 +
samples were this is it stated.
collected? or how Anyway, when I assess the methods used in the study,
participants were I must look to determine whether the research is
recruited? technically sound. Some questions I might consider,
Is there any potential depending on the type of study, includes: What - 0 +
bias in the sample or experiments or interventions were used? Are the
in the recruitment of experiments or interventions appropriate for
participants? addressing the research question? Are conditions
Are the correct adequate and the right controls in place? Is there - 0 +
controls / validation enough data to draw a conclusion? Do the authors
included? address any possible limitations of the research? Was
Are any potential data collected and interpreted accurately? Do the - 0 +
confounding factors authors follow best practices for reporting? Does the
considered? study conform best practices for reporting? Does the
Has any study conform to ethical guidelines? Could another - 0 +
randomization been researcher reproduce the study with the same
done correctly? methods (Have the authors provided enough
Is the time-frame of information to validate the study)? - 0 +
the study sufficient
to see outcomes?
Is there sufficient - 0 +
power and
appropriate
statistics?
Do I have ethical - 0 +
concerns?
For the Results
Are the results The results section of a paper represents the core - 0 +
presented clearly findings of a study derived from the methods applied
and accurately? to gather and analyze information. It presents these
Do the results findings in a logical sequence without bias or - 0 +
presented match the interpretation from the author, setting up the reader
methods? for later interpretation and evaluation in the
Is there any risk of discussion section. A major purpose of the results - 0 +
participants being section is to break down the data into sentences that
identified? show its significance to the research questions.
Is the data described Any information that does not present the direct - 0 +
in the text consistent findings or outcome of the study should be left out of
with the data in the this section. Explanations and interpretations of these
figures and tables? results should be omitted from the results, unless the
Check if the dates of journal or advisor request the author to include - 0 +
the study are results and discussions together.
provided.
Check if the author’s - 0 +
point of view is
supported by
evidence.
Check if any figures, - 0 +
tables, photographs,
illustrations, art
work, or other
supporting graphics
are relevant to the
topic, well
constructed, easy to
comprehend, and
visually appealing.
Check if the tables - 0 +
and figures are able
to stand
independently (if
they do not require
explanation from the
text), and if the
numbers add up
correctly.
Check if a literature - 0 +
review is provided to
identify gaps in
knowledge about the
manuscript issue,
and show how the
discussion will add
substantially to what
is already known.
Check if the citations - 0 +
are up to date and
relevant, and if all
statements requiring
citations have
citations.
In the case of a - 0 +
systematic review,
check if the review is
systematic in that it
collates and
summarizes all
relevant findings on
a particular topic, if
the manuscript is not
overly influence by
the opinions and
biases of the
authors, and if the
review was properly
conducted.
For the Discussion and Conclusion
Do the author The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and - 0 +
logically explain the describe the significance of the findings in accordance
findings? of what is already known about the research problem,
Do the author and to explain any new understanding or insights that - 0 +
compare the findings emerged as a result of the study of the problem.
for future research The discussion will always connect to the introduction
and potential by way of the research questions or hypotheses the
applications author posed and the review of the literature.
discussed? A conclusion is the last section of the manuscript,
Are the implications summarizing its thesis and arguments. It helps readers - 0 +
of the findings for see why the essay should manner to them.
future research and The discussion clearly explain how the study advanced
potential the reader’s understanding of the research problem
applications, from the state of the art previous to the study, and it
effectively should comprise the following three questions: 1)
discussed? What is known? (Our understanding of the world) 2)
Are the conclusions What is unknown? (What is the gap we want to fill?) - 0 +
supported, by the 3) How and why should we fill the gap? (The rationale
data presented? and purpose / hypothesis).
Are any limitations For the conclusion, the author must: 1) restate the - 0 +
of the study, topic, 2) restate the thesis statement, 3) briefly
effectively summarize his main points, 4) add the points up if
discussed? needed, 5) make a call for action when appropriate, 6)
Are any answer the “so what” question of the study. - 0 +
contradictory data, The conclusion in the research paper is important to
effectively remind the readers of the strength and impact of the
discussed? author’s argument. Concluding statements in the
paper can also help to refocus the reader’s attention
to the most important points and supporting evidence
of the arguments or position presented in the
research.
Conclusions can also serve as a basis for continuing
research, creating new ideas to resolve an issue or
offering new approaches to a topic.

Form

Criteria (concern) Proposing a way of dealing with this concern Valuation

Puctuation Read the author’s piece aloud to see where to stop or - 0 +
pause for periods, question marks, exclamation marks
and commas. Quotation marks are included where
needed.
Capital letters Check the capitals at the beginning of sentences. - 0 +
Proper nouns begin with capital letters.
Grammar Sentences are complete thoughts and contain a noun - 0 +
and a verb. There are no run-on sentences.
Point out any of the following: misspelled words,
grammatical mistakes, punctuation errors, run-on
sentences, fragments.
Spelling Spelling is correct. - 0 +
Style In addition to content and organization, writers of - 0 +
research papers should be aware of grammar and
style issues that directly affect the readability and
strength of their work.
The author must write in the active voice when
possible (shortening the sentences and enhancing the
impact of the information provided); use stronger
 verbs when possible (same effect), and always move
the arguments from the broad to the specific.
Coherence Check the paper hard to read because the paragraphs - 0 +
did not flow together? Did the authors use excessive
ad confusing acronyms or jargon?
The ideas must flow logically and make sense.
Transitions are used correctly. There are no awkward
parts. The essay must look interesting.
Ideas and content Everything in the essay supports the thesis statement. - 0 +
There is enough supporting evidence for each body
paragraph. Descriptive and precise words are used.
Sentence structure is varied (a mix of simple,
compound and complex sentences).

Points of major interest for law related manuscripts (essays):

 For legal issues: identify the research question, thesis, rules of law and key claims. Has the writer
clearly expressed the question (major claim, thesis), selected? What is that question?
 Think about context and related literature, especially comprehensively reference relevant legal
sources and existing scholarship for the issue of the paper, articulating the gaps in existing
scholarly literature that the article seek to fill.
 Look at the figures and tables. Are they clear? Do they represent what the topic of the study?
 Examine if the data or sources supports the result of the study.
 Check the methods. Are they appropriate and reproducible?
 Check the scope of coverage, i.e., the extent to which a source explores a topic, considering
time-period, geography or jurisdiction and coverage of related or narrower topics.
 Check the adequate use of cites and references.
 Check the authority, i.e., the expertise or recognized status of the sources and claims.
 Check the objectivity, i.e., the bias or opinion expressed for the writer, including the use of
persuasive language, the source’s presentation of other viewpoints (arguments and counter-
arguments) and its reason for providing the information and advertising.
 Check the accuracy and timeliness of the information at the time of publication.
 Check about grammatical and spelling errors; if the author keeps sentences short, clear and
direct; or explain jargon upon first use.
 For analysis of case law (judicial precedents): check case / date / court; rule; issue, facts,
decision, result / reasons; relevance.

Sources:
(n.d.). Checklist for self and peer editing. Retrieved from:
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/printouts/Editing%20Checklist.pdf
(n.d.) How to write a compelling research paper introduction. Wordvice. Retrieved from:
https://wordvice.com/video-how-to-write-a-compelling-research-paper-introduction/

(n.d.) Organizing your social sciences research paper. The introduction. USC Libraries. Retrieved from:
https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/introduction#:~:text=It%20establishes%20the%20scope%2C
%20context,questions%2C%20explaining%20briefly%20the%20methodological

(n.d.) Organizing your social sciences research paper. The discussion. USC Libraries. Retrieved from:
https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/discussion

(n.d.) Writing the results section for a research paper. Wordvice. Retrieved from:
https://wordvice.com/writing-the-results-section-for-a-research-paper/

(n.d.) Peer editing checklist. Retrieved from:

http://mscohnstaedt.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/2/3/51235283/peer-editing.pdf

(n.d.) Peer reviewing checklist. CDC. Retrieved from:

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/for_reviewers/reviewer_checklists.htm

(n.d.) Criteria for quality in information. Justia. Retrieved from: https://virtualchase.justia.com/quality-

criteria-checklist/

(n.d.) Review checklist. Editor Resources. Retrieved from:

https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/reviewer-guidelines/review-checklist/

(n.d.) Peer review checklist. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/peer-review-checklist/

(n.d.) You’ve been invited to review. Now what? Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/youve-
been-invited-to-review-now-what/

(n.d.) Competing interests for reviewers. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/competing-

interests-for-reviewers/

(n.d.). Ethics for peer reviewers. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/ethics-for-peer-

reviewers/

(n.d.) 10 tips for getting started as a peer reviewer. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/10-
tips-for-getting-started-as-a-peer-reviewer/

(n.d.). How to write a great title. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/how-to-write-a-great-

title/

(n.d.) How to share your research. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/how-to-share-your-

research/

(n.d.) Referee with a conflict of interest. Cope. Retrieved from:

https://publicationethics.org/case/referee-conflict-interest
(n.d.) Disagreement between a reviewer and an author. Cope. Retrieved from:
https://publicationethics.org/case/disagreement-between-reviewer-and-author

(n.d.) Open peer review. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/open-peer-review/

(n.d.) How to read a manuscript as a peer reviewer. Plos. Retrieved from: https://plos.org/resource/how-
to-read-a-manuscript-as-a-peer-reviewer/

(n.d.) Peer review data. A reviewer’s quick guide to assessing open datasets. Plos. Retrieved from:
https://plos.org/resource/peer-reviewing-data/

Engman, S. (2017, July 7) How to write a strong conclusion for your essay. Bid4papers. Retrieved from:
https://bid4papers.com/blog/essay-conclusion/

(2018, February 22) How to write a conclusion for a research paper. Essay-lib. Retrieved from:
https://essay-lib.com/write-conclusion-research-paper/

(2020, April 14) How to write a conclusion for a research paper. Retrieved from:
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-write-a-conclusion-for-a-research-
paper

Armagan, A. (n.d.) How to write an introduction section of a scientific article. NCBI. Retrieved from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/

Morgan, M. (2020, April 17) How to write a research introduction. Wikihow. Retrieved from:
https://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Research-Introduction

Pusok, A. (n.d.) Peer-review checklist. Retrieved from:

https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/gd/files/2019/02/Peer_review_checklist.pdf

India Journal of Law (2020, June 14) Homepage [Facebook site]. Facebook. Retrieved from:
https://www.facebook.com/IndianLawReview/

Scwartz, J. (n.d.). Peer review checklist. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from:

https://dept.writing.wisc.edu/wac/peer-review-checklist/