Editors want clean reports that they can scan, cite, and act on fast. Authors need plain, precise notes they can turn into fixes. This guide shows a simple layout that fits both needs while staying aligned with leading reviewer instructions. You will see the exact headers to use, the order that works across journals, and phrasing that keeps the tone fair and calm.
Formatting A Peer Review Report: The Core Layout
Most journals accept a text block pasted into their system, a DOCX, or a PDF. No matter the intake, the same internal structure wins. Think of your review as a small report with clear sections. Use short headers, then write in short paragraphs or numbered bullets. Keep every point specific to a line or two, and link each point to a place in the manuscript by page, line, figure, or table number.
Header Block
Begin with top line details the editor will reuse. Include manuscript ID, title, journal name, and the review round. Add a one line verdict such as “Suitable after revision” or “Not ready.” Keep this line neutral and plain.
Standalone Summary
Give a five to eight sentence snapshot of what the work claims, the main strengths, and the main gaps. Write it as if the author’s colleague will read it. This sets the frame for your points and lets editors quote you.
Suitability Note
State how the work fits the journal scope and readership. If the match is weak, say why and suggest a better home or section. If the match is strong, name the audience and the reason.
Major Points
List the changes that affect trust, logic, or completeness. Number each item. One item per paragraph. Point to the exact place in the paper and say what change would fix it. If more than eight major items appear, group them under short subheaders.
Minor Points
Collect fixes that improve clarity or polish. Number these as well. Keep them short. Notes on typos, labels, units, small math slips, and style all belong here.
Data, Code, And Materials
Say whether data, code, and materials are shared and readable. If access is limited, note what a reader can verify. If reuse needs a license, cite it. If a dataset or figure lacks metadata, say so.
Ethics And Competing Interests
State any concerns that touch consent, animal care, preregistration, trial registration, duplicate posting, or prior review history. If you have a conflict, disclose it and ask the editor to reassign if needed. Follow the COPE guidance for peer reviewers.
Private Note To The Editor
Use this space for points that are not for authors, such as identity risks in a blinded process, confidential checks, or policy issues. Keep it short and factual.
Recommendation
Close with one of the standard choices used by the journal. Phrase it in one line and match it to your points. Common choices are reject, major revision, minor revision, or accept. If the system asks for a rating, mirror your written case.
| Section | What To Include | One-Line Example |
|---|---|---|
| Header | ID, title, journal, round, brief verdict | “J-2025-1042, Round 1 — Revise” |
| Summary | Claim, methods, main strength, main gap | “Strong dataset; causal claim needs support” |
| Suitability | Fit to scope and readers | “Fits Methods section; broad interest to clinicians” |
| Major points | Numbered, each tied to pages or figures | “1) p.6, Fig 2: control missing; add baseline” |
| Minor points | Numbered polish and clarity notes | “3) Table 1 units should be SI” |
| Data & code | Links, access, reuse terms | “Zenodo link works; add README on columns” |
| Ethics | Consent, approvals, prereg, conflicts | “IRB listed; trial ID not provided” |
| Private note | Blinding, identity, policy only | “Author cites own preprint; fine for this journal” |
| Recommendation | One line that matches your case | “Minor revision” |
How To Format A Peer-Review Report For Journals
The labels above match the intake forms used by large houses. If you follow this order, your text pastes cleanly into most systems and reads well if compiled as a PDF. When a journal gives a template, mirror its labels and still keep the same logic inside each block.
When The System Splits Fields
Some forms split “Comments to the author” and “Confidential to the editor.” Write the public part as a self-contained note that an author can forward to a team. Then add any policy notes in the private box. Do not put private items in the public field.
When You Upload A File
Use a simple layout with clear headers and a readable font. A single column text file is easiest to parse. Bold the section headers; keep body text at standard size and line spacing. Avoid footnotes; write full sentences.
When A Journal Asks For Ratings
Many forms ask for scores on novelty, methods, clarity, or data sharing. Treat these as a quick index for the editor, not as the core of your case. Make sure each score lines up with a point in your text.
For process details and sample phrasing, see the Elsevier guide for reviewers and Nature’s page on writing your report.
Style, Tone, And Numbering That Editors Love
Plain language wins. Short sentences keep the message crisp. Avoid slang. Keep the tone steady and fair. Write to help the authors repair the work. When you reject, keep the same tone and show the path that would have been needed.
Numbered Points
Number every item. This helps the author reply point by point and helps editors track changes across rounds. If a point has subparts, use a, b, c under the same number to avoid clutter.
Citations Inside The Review
If you cite a source, give a short reference with DOI or a stable link. Do not add a long reference list. Keep the text readable first.
Quoting Manuscript Text
Quote sparingly and only to show a correction. Long quotes bloat the report and slow the read. Point to lines and paraphrase the issue instead.
Word Count And Length
Most solid reports land in the 600 to 1200 word range, plus lists and labels. Dense methods papers can take more. If you pass 1500 words, check whether items can move to minor notes.
Ethics, Identity, And AI Use
Protect identities when the process is blinded. Remove self-revealing details from any file you upload. Do not share manuscripts, data, or images beyond the review team. If you used a tool to draft notes or check text, state that in the private note, keep raw text off third party tools, and verify every claim yourself. See the COPE ethical guidelines for the baseline and journal pages for any extra rules.
Publishers set clear limits on tools and data handling. Keep sensitive material out of public tools and write the final text in your own words.
Copyable Template
Header • Manuscript ID: _______ • Title: _______ • Journal: _______ • Round: R1 / R2 / R3 • Verdict: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject Summary • What the paper asks: • What the paper finds: • Strong points: • Main gaps: Suitability • Fit to journal: • Audience and reach: Major Points 1) [page, line / figure] — [issue] — [action] 2) [page, line / figure] — [issue] — [action] 3) [page, line / figure] — [issue] — [action] Minor Points 1) [typo / label / unit / reference fix] 2) [clarity or wording] 3) [format or style] Data, Code, And Materials • Links and access: • Reuse terms: • What is missing: Ethics And Competing Interests • Approvals / consent: • Trial ID / prereg: • Conflict statement: Private Note To The Editor • Blinding risks / identity: • Policy notes: Recommendation • Choice and one line reason:
Common Formatting Mistakes To Avoid
Mixing Major And Minor Fixes
When large and small items sit in one list, authors lose the sense of priority. Keep the hard asks in the major list. Move word tweaks, labels, or copy edits to the minor list.
Writing Vague Points
“Needs more data” or “unclear” do not help. Say what data is missing or where the logic breaks. Name the section and give a concrete action that would solve the issue.
Using Loaded Language
Stay away from sharp remarks, sarcasm, or personal notes. Write about the work, not the team. Polite text speeds revision and keeps the record professional.
Hiding The Main Verdict
Do not bury the recommendation. State it in the header and again at the end. Editors scan for this line to plan the next step.
Journal Variations Quick Guide
| Element | Typical Requirement | Where To Check |
|---|---|---|
| Blinding | Single or double blind text with no identity hints | Journal “Instructions for referees” |
| File type | Text box paste, DOCX, or PDF | Submission portal rules |
| Ratings | Scores on novelty, methods, clarity, data | Form fields in system |
| Length | Soft ranges; brief is fine if points are sharp | Reviewer FAQ |
| Open review | Option to sign or publish the report | Journal policy page |
Special Cases And What To Do
Registered Reports
At Stage 1, assess the question and methods plan, not results. Check power, controls, and analysis plans. At Stage 2, check that the work followed the plan and that the write up matches the preregistered tests.
Preprints And Prior Posting
Many fields allow preprints. If the study builds on a preprint, say whether new data or analysis appear. Point out overlap that needs citation or trimming.
Large Collaborations
When dozens of authors appear, give priority to clarity of methods and data access. Suggest a contributorship table if roles are unclear.
Clinical Trials
Look for a public registry ID and consent language. Check that outcomes match the registry entry. If outcomes moved, ask for a clear note and reason.
Systematic Reviews
Check the protocol, search strings, inclusion rules, and bias checks. Request a data file with the study list and a PRISMA style flow figure.
Submission Workflow And File Details
Before you submit, read the journal page for any layout rules or conflict forms. Sign the conflict section and state any ties. Save a copy of your report. If the portal allows rich text, keep styling simple so the export to PDF stays clean.
Many journals export your text into the decision letter. Short headers ensure clean quotes. Keep private notes for the editor inside the confidential field, not the public field.
If this is your first report, scan training pages from large publishers. The Elsevier reviewer guide and Nature’s writing your report page give concrete steps and samples you can adapt to any field.
What Good Formatting Achieves
A good layout lets editors grasp your message in one pass and gives authors a roadmap they can follow without guessing. Your subject insight matters, and the way you package it helps the community use it. Use the template in this guide, tune the labels to the journal, and keep the tone steady from start to finish.