Conduct a rigorous, objective, and constructive peer review of an academic manuscript by evaluating its scientific quality, originality, methodological rigour, clarity, significance, and publication readiness while maintaining professional reviewer standards.
This prompt has variables that can be replaced with your own information. Copy and use it with your preferred LLM, or try it out in the LearnerBox Prompt Playground.
Act as an experienced Journal Peer Reviewer, Academic Editor, and Subject-Matter Expert.
Conduct a professional peer review of the manuscript using only the information provided below.
Manuscript:
{{manuscript}}
Journal requirements:
{{journal_requirements}}
Review focus:
{{review_focus}}
Review requirements:
1. Begin by evaluating the manuscript's overall contribution, originality, relevance to the field, and suitability for the target journal.
2. Assess the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, references, and supplementary materials where applicable. Consider whether each section fulfils its intended purpose and contributes to a coherent manuscript.
3. Critically evaluate the scientific or scholarly rigour of the study, including research design, methodology, analytical approach, interpretation of findings, logical consistency, and alignment between research questions, methods, results, and conclusions.
4. Assess the clarity of writing, organisation, academic tone, terminology, figure and table presentation, citation consistency, and overall readability.
5. Identify major concerns that could affect publication, including methodological weaknesses, unsupported conclusions, missing literature, reporting deficiencies, ethical concerns, statistical limitations, or inconsistencies within the manuscript.
6. Identify minor issues such as grammar, formatting, clarity, referencing style, figure labelling, terminology, or editorial improvements.
7. Provide constructive recommendations that help strengthen the manuscript while explaining the academic rationale for each recommendation.
Research integrity requirements:
- Never invent errors that are unsupported by the manuscript.
- Clearly distinguish objective observations from reviewer opinion.
- Do not rewrite the manuscript unless specifically requested.
- Avoid personal criticism and maintain a professional, respectful, and impartial review.
- Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses.
- Base every recommendation on recognised scholarly standards and the evidence available within the manuscript.
Present the final output with:
- overall assessment;
- major strengths;
- major concerns;
- minor comments;
- section-by-section review;
- publication recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, with justification);
- reviewer summary for the editor;
- feedback for the authors.Replace each variable shown in double curly brackets with accurate information from your own professional context.
{{manuscript}}
Example: Provide the manuscript or the sections that require peer review.
Include the complete manuscript whenever possible for a comprehensive review.
{{journal_requirements}}
Example: Describe the target journal, discipline, reporting guidelines, editorial policies, or author instructions.
Providing journal requirements allows the review to reflect the journal's expectations.
{{review_focus}}
Example: For example: methodology, statistical analysis, theoretical contribution, clarity of writing, publication readiness, or complete review.
Specify any areas that require particular attention during the review.
A professional peer-review report containing an overall assessment, major strengths, major concerns, minor comments, section-by-section evaluation, publication recommendation with justification, confidential reviewer summary for the editor, and constructive feedback for the authors.
These characteristics describe the type of thinking, customization, and output structure involved in using this prompt effectively.
This breakdown explains how the prompt’s major components work together to guide the AI toward a useful, reliable, and well-structured response.
Positions the AI as a Journal Peer Reviewer, Academic Editor, and Subject-Matter Expert.
Defines the manuscript, target journal requirements, and any specific review priorities.
Conducts a balanced and evidence-based peer review by evaluating scientific quality, originality, methodology, clarity, and publication readiness.
Prevents unsupported criticism, fabricated errors, manuscript rewriting, or biased commentary while requiring objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
Requires an overall assessment, strengths, major concerns, minor comments, section-by-section review, publication recommendation, editor summary, and author feedback.
Academic manuscript, journal requirements, and review focus.
AI-generated responses can contain errors, omissions, unsupported assumptions, outdated information, or recommendations that do not reflect your jurisdiction or professional context.
Verify calculations, evidence, regulations, standards, policies, and professional recommendations before relying on the result. The qualified professional remains responsible for the final decision.
Return to the specialization page to explore additional professional workflows and prompt templates.
Customize the template for your professional context or open it directly in the Prompt Playground for guided AI practice.