Skip to content
CitationEasy

Peer Review Report Generator

Write a journal referee report in the order editors expect: your own summary of the submission, strengths, numbered major comments that say where, what and whether the fix is essential, minor comments, a recommendation, and a confidential note to the editor. The tool checks that your recommendation matches your comments and that your wording stays about the work. Honest templates, no AI. Free, no sign-up.

The manuscript

Summary and strengths

Shows the editor you understood the work. Describe what the authors claim, not what you think of it.

Major comments

Problems that bear on whether the conclusions hold. Say where, what, and what would resolve it — and whether it is essential.

Major comment 1
Major comment 2

Minor comments, scope and recommendation

For the editor, and your declarations

COPE: most feedback belongs in the report for the authors, and this space is not for criticism made because the authors will not see it.

Report check

0

Words for the authors

0

Major comments

0

Minor comments

0

Marked essential

  • To do: Write a summary of the submission in your own words.
  • Check: No strengths yet. Editors ask for an honest and fair view of strengths and weaknesses.
  • Done: Every major comment says where it applies.
  • Done: Every request is marked essential or not.
  • To do: Choose a recommendation.
  • Done: No loaded words found in what the authors will read.
  • To do: Tick the declarations your journal asks for, or state any competing interest.

Your review report

10 parts still to write

Referee Report

Review report template

Tip: Everything down to the recommendation is written for the authors to read. Follow your journal’s form where it has one.

Summary of the submission

Tip: In your own words: the question, the methods and the main conclusions. No judgement yet.

To write: Summarize the submission in a short paragraph: “This manuscript reports a [design] study of [question] in [sample]. The authors conclude that [claim].”

Strengths

To write: Name what works, specifically: the question, the design, the data, the clarity.

Major comments

Tip: Number each comment. Be specific, give evidence for general statements, and say which requests are essential.

To write: For each major comment: “[Section, page or lines]: [the problem]. This matters because [effect on the conclusions]. [What would resolve it].”

Minor comments

Tip: Clarity, labels, typos and small omissions that do not change the conclusions.

To write: One short comment per line, with its location: “p. 4, l. 12: [typo, definition or unclear sentence].”

Scope of this review

To write: If you could assess only part of the manuscript, say which parts, and why.

Recommendation

Tip: Keep it consistent with your comments. The editor makes the final decision.

To write: Choose accept, minor revision, major revision or reject, in the form your journal offers.

To write: Give the reason: “My recommendation rests mainly on [comment numbers], because [reason].”

Confidential comments to the editor

Tip: Only the editor sees this. Most feedback belongs above, where the authors can answer it.

To write: Add anything only the editor should see: ethical concerns, suspected overlap with other work, or undeclared interests. Leave it empty if there is none.

Declarations

  • I have no competing interests to declare.
  • I have kept the manuscript and this review confidential.

To write: Declare any competing interest — personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious — or ask the journal if you are unsure.

To write: Name anyone who helped you review, or leave this out if no one did.

How to Use the Peer Review Report Generator

  1. 1. Summarise before you judge. Describe what the manuscript claims and how it tests it, in your own words. The summary shows the editor you understood the work.
  2. 2. Add major comments one at a time. For each, give the location, the concern, what would resolve it, and whether that request is essential to support the conclusions or would only strengthen the paper.
  3. 3. List minor comments, one per line. Typos, labels, units and unclear sentences — with a page or line number where you can.
  4. 4. Choose a recommendation and read the checklist. The tool flags a recommendation that does not match your comments, a comment with no location, and loaded wording. Then copy the report into the journal’s form.

What a Reviewer Report Contains

Journals use different forms, and the journal’s form always wins. Behind the variations is a common shape. Elsevier’s reviewer guidance asks for a short summary first, then detailed comments organised by section, and notes that you can direct separate comments to the editor and to the authors. Springer Nature’s guidance describes two layouts for the specific comments — major and minor, or in page order — and advises asking the editor which they prefer. The EASE toolkit says to label each comment as major or minor and to keep the tone constructive.

PartWho sees itWhat it does
SummaryAuthors and editorStates, neutrally, what the submission claims and how
StrengthsAuthors and editorNames what works, so the criticism is credible and balanced
Major commentsAuthors and editorConcerns that affect whether the conclusions hold, each specific and each marked essential or not
Minor commentsAuthors and editorClarity, labels, units and typos that do not change the conclusions
RecommendationUsually the editor, sometimes bothAccept, minor revision, major revision or reject, with a reason
Confidential commentsEditor onlyEthical concerns and anything not for the authors

Some journals take the recommendation only in a separate field, and some, such as the Nature Reviews titles, do not ask for one. Follow the form you are given.

What COPE Asks of Reviewers

The Committee on Publication Ethics publishes Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Several of its points shape the tool directly: be objective and constructive and avoid hostile or derogatory personal comments; be specific, and support a general statement such as “this has been done before” with references; make clear which additional investigations are essential and which would only strengthen or extend the work; keep your comments and recommendations to the editor consistent with the report for the authors; and do not use confidential comments for denigration or false accusation. It also asks reviewers to keep the manuscript confidential, declare competing interests, and say clearly which parts they could not assess.

Worked Example: Three Major Comments

“Try an example” loads a review of an invented trial of peer tutoring — the same manuscript that appears in the Response to Reviewers Generator, seen from the reviewer’s side. The report for the authors runs to 249 words. It has three major comments, two marked essential and one that would only strengthen the paper, and three minor comments. Every comment names its location, so the checklist is clear, and a recommendation of major revision matches two essential requests.

Example: the first major comment as the tool writes it

Major comment 1. (Methods, sample size) No power calculation is reported, so the reader cannot judge whether the trial could detect an effect of the size the authors expected, or what a null result on the secondary outcomes would mean.
What would resolve it: State how the target of 14 schools was determined, or report the smallest effect the trial could detect.
This is essential to support the conclusions.

Common Mistakes in Review Reports

  • A list with no summary. Without a neutral summary, the editor cannot tell whether you understood the paper, and the authors cannot tell either.
  • Vague criticism. “The methods are weak” cannot be answered. Name the section, the problem and what would fix it.
  • Rewriting the paper. COPE reminds reviewers that it is the authors’ paper: suggest changes that improve clarity, but do not impose your preferred style on a sound manuscript.
  • Contradicting yourself. A recommendation to accept sits oddly beside three major comments. The editor reads both.
  • Saving the real criticism for the editor. Anything substantial enough to affect the decision belongs in the report the authors can answer.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I structure a peer review report?
Start with a short summary of the submission in your own words, name its strengths, then give numbered major comments followed by minor comments, and end with your recommendation. Put anything only the editor should see in the confidential section. If the journal supplies a form, use its headings.
What is the difference between major and minor comments?
Major comments address problems that bear on whether the conclusions are supported, such as design flaws, missing analyses or unsupported claims; fixing them may need new work. Minor comments cover clarity, labelling, units and typos that do not change the conclusions.
What should go in the confidential comments to the editor?
Concerns the authors should not see, such as suspected misconduct, undeclared conflicts or substantial overlap with other work. COPE says to put most feedback in the report for the authors, and that confidential comments should not be a place for denigration or false accusation.
Can I use AI to write or polish my review?
Check the journal’s policy first. Nature asks reviewers not to upload manuscripts to generative AI tools, which would breach the confidentiality COPE expects. This tool is not AI: it runs in your browser, so nothing you type is uploaded, and it only arranges your own sentences.
How long should a review be?
As long as it needs to be to be specific and no longer. Reports range from a few hundred words to several pages depending on the paper and the journal. The tool shows the word count for the authors so you can see the balance between comments, but no length is correct in itself.
How do I decline a review I am not qualified for?
Reply to the editor promptly. COPE says reviewers should accept only manuscripts they have the expertise to assess and can return on time, should say so if they can assess only part, and should decline if they cannot be fair. If you can assess only some of the paper, say which parts in your report.

Related Tools

Response to Reviewers GeneratorPeer Review Form GeneratorLiterature Review Matrix GeneratorResearch Question GeneratorHow the Peer Review Process WorksHow to Read Academic Papers

More in Research & Publishing

See all Research & Publishing