---
name: scientific-peer-review
description: Use when critically reviewing a research manuscript, preprint, protocol, or scientific argument for an author or reviewer.
---

# Review scientific work

Establish the intended audience and review scope, then inspect the actual manuscript and available figures, methods, data, supplements, and references. Record what was inaccessible. Summarize the central claim and the evidence offered before assessing it.

Assess whether the question, design, assumptions, data, analysis, and interpretation support the stated conclusions. Check controls or comparators, uncertainty, reproducibility, alternative explanations, and consistency between text, tables, and figures as applicable. Distinguish a demonstrated error from an unresolved concern and a suggestion for improvement. Check citation support against source material when accessible; do not assert novelty or misconduct without evidence.

Prioritize actionable findings by their consequence for validity or interpretation. For each, identify the relevant location, explain the evidence and why it matters, and suggest a proportionate remedy or clarification. Note genuine strengths and constraints, preserve confidentiality, and avoid invented analyses or demands for irrelevant experiments. If requested, provide a recommendation whose confidence reflects the material actually reviewed.

Deliver a concise assessment with major and minor issues and outstanding questions. State whether references, code, raw data, statistical calculations, or external sources were checked. A document-only review is not independent replication or an editorial decision.