Home › Editorial & peer review

What reviewers look for in a manuscript

Reviewers apply a fairly stable set of criteria when they assess a manuscript, even though the fields they work in differ widely. They ask whether the work is new, whether the method is sound, whether the conclusions follow from the evidence, and whether the paper is clear enough to be understood and checked. Knowing these criteria will not guarantee acceptance, but it helps an author strengthen a manuscript before it is sent. This page explains what reviewers typically look for and what you should confirm on the journal's official pages.

Originality and contribution

The first question is what the work adds. A manuscript should make clear what was already known and what this study changes. Reviewers look for a genuine contribution, whether that is a new finding, a new method, a more rigorous test of an existing idea or a useful synthesis of scattered evidence.

Originality does not require novelty for its own sake. A careful replication or a well-argued negative result can be valuable, provided the paper explains why it matters and does not overstate what it shows.

Soundness of method

Reviewers examine how the study was designed, how the sample was chosen, what controls were used and whether the analysis suits the data. They look for a method that could answer the question asked, and for enough detail that another researcher could follow it. Gaps in method are among the most common reasons for revision.

Statistical reasoning receives close attention. Reviewers check that tests are appropriate, that uncertainty is reported, and that conclusions are not built on differences that could reasonably be chance.

Clarity and structure

A well-written manuscript is easier to assess and more likely to be read. Reviewers ask whether the abstract matches the paper, whether the introduction establishes the problem, and whether the discussion distinguishes what the data show from what the authors hope. Clear figures and tables, with informative captions, speed up the assessment.

Clarity is not decoration. A paper that hides its method or overstates its findings in vague language creates doubt, and reviewers are entitled to ask for a rewrite rather than guess at the meaning.

Ethics and reporting standards

Reviewers check that ethical requirements have been met. Where human or animal subjects are involved, approval and consent statements are expected; where data or code underlie the work, a clear availability statement is increasingly standard. Authorship, funding and conflicts of interest must be declared.

These checks protect the record as much as the journal. A manuscript that omits them is usually returned for the missing information even if the science appears sound.

The criteria at a glance

The table below gathers the main points a reviewer weighs. The emphasis varies with the journal and the article type, and the exact requirements are set out in the current instructions to authors.

How reviewers write their reports

Most reports have a common shape: a short summary of what the paper claims, a general assessment, then specific points by section, followed by a recommendation. Reviewers are usually asked to distinguish major issues, which affect the validity of the work, from minor ones, which concern presentation.

Good reports explain their reasoning, so that the author can understand and respond. A report that merely asserts a fault without evidence is of little help, and editors notice the difference.

Using the criteria before you submit

You can apply the same criteria to your own draft. Read it as a sceptical specialist would, and check that each claim is supported, each method is described and each declaration is present. It is worth asking a colleague to read it cold, since gaps that are invisible to the author are often obvious to a fresh reader.

• Is the contribution to the field stated in a single clear sentence?
• Could another researcher repeat the method from what you have written?
• Do your conclusions stay within what the data can support?
• Are approvals, consent, funding and conflicts all declared?
• Are your figures and tables self-explanatory without the main text?

Turning review into improvement

Reviewer criticism is intended to strengthen the work, and most accepted papers were revised in response to it. Answer each point in turn, agree where the point is fair, and where you disagree, explain why with evidence rather than assertion. A calm, specific response is more persuasive than a defensive one.

Understanding what reviewers look for turns a stressful process into a manageable one. Because the specific criteria and required declarations are set by the publisher, confirm the current expectations on the journal's official pages before you finalise your submission.

Reviewers judge originality, method, analysis, clarity and ethics, and those five areas cover most of what decides a recommendation. Preparing your manuscript against them is the most effective step you can take before submitting. The detailed requirements are set by the publisher, so always confirm the current criteria and declarations on the journal's official pages.

Read next