← Về thư mục
Peer-review working draft — {{REVIEW_ID}}
Private working document. Human review, policy checks, and factual verification are required. Do not submit this scaffold with unresolved placeholders. Do not make or announce an editorial decision.
Intake record
- Reviewer capacity:
{{REVIEWER_CAPACITY}}
- Peer-review model:
{{PEER_REVIEW_MODEL}}
- Declared processing plan:
{{AI_PLAN}}
- Manuscript text is not embedded by the generator.
- Reconfirm conflicts, competence limits, tool use, confidentiality, and deletion or retention obligations before submission.
Evidence-bounded summary
[Write a neutral summary of the question, design, and principal claims. Do not invent findings or imply that unperformed analyses were run.]
Strengths
[Identify specific strengths supported by a manuscript location or supplied material.]
- Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or claim ID]
- Observation: [State what is reported, missing, inconsistent, or unsupported]
- Evidence or criterion: [Cite manuscript evidence, a method principle, venue policy, or reporting item]
- Why it matters: [Explain the consequence for validity, interpretation, reproducibility, ethics, or reporting]
- Requested action: [Request clarification, correction, analysis, evidence, or a bounded revision]
- Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or reference ID]
- Observation: [State the local clarity, consistency, citation, figure, or reporting issue]
- Evidence or criterion: [Identify the relevant evidence or criterion]
- Why it matters: [Explain the reader-facing consequence]
- Requested action: [Request a specific correction or clarification]
Methods, statistics, and reproducibility
[Summarize only assessed issues. Distinguish reporting gaps from design or analysis concerns and state where specialist review is needed.]
[Record specific, evidence-backed issues. Do not allege misconduct; route credible integrity concerns through the journal process.]
Limitations of this review
[State competence limits, unavailable materials, analyses not independently reproduced, and unresolved uncertainty.]
Keep this channel separate from comments to authors. Follow the venue policy. Do not place ordinary scientific criticism only here.
Reviewer disclosures
- Conflicts and editor clearance: [State the disclosed status without unnecessary personal detail]
- Competence limits or specialist review needed: [State areas]
- Assistance or tools used and required disclosure: [State policy-compliant details]
- Confidentiality or retention issue: [State any unresolved process concern]
Editorial-process or integrity concerns
[Describe only substantiated process, ethics, confidentiality, or integrity concerns and their evidence locations. Avoid accusations and avoid an editorial outcome.]