Quick Review Checklist

• Is the manuscript within the scope of mammal research?
• Are methods and analyses appropriate for the research question?
• Are results reported clearly with adequate statistics?
• Do conclusions align with the evidence presented?

Use this checklist to structure your first pass and identify major issues early.

Ethical Obligations

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest, and report suspected misconduct to the editor.

Methodological Checks

• Sample size rationale and inclusion criteria are stated.
• Task procedures, stimuli, and timing are described clearly.
• Statistical models match the study design.
• Limitations and confounds are acknowledged.

Key Statistical Checks

Review whether analyses are appropriate for the design, whether multiple comparisons are addressed, and whether effect sizes and confidence intervals are reported when relevant.

Transparency And Availability

Check for data availability statements, ethics approvals, and consent language. For computational studies, confirm that code or models are provided or that access limitations are explained.

Suggested Review Format

• Brief summary of the paper and its contribution.
• Major issues affecting validity or interpretation.
• Minor issues such as clarity and formatting.
• Recommendation and rationale.

Major Vs Minor Issues

List major issues first and explain why they affect the conclusions. Minor issues can include clarity, formatting, or small methodological clarifications.

Standards And Guidelines

Encourage authors to follow reporting standards such as CONSORT, PRISMA, or STROBE when relevant. Transparent reporting improves reproducibility and clarity.

Frequent Review Notes

• Missing task details or unclear stimulus descriptions.
• Insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.
• Inconsistent figures or tables not aligned with text.
• Over interpretation beyond the presented evidence.

Optional Review Phrases

Reviewers may use structured language to provide clear guidance, such as: \"The methods section would benefit from additional detail on task timing\" or \"Please clarify how missing data were handled.\"

Notes To The Editor

Use confidential notes for ethical concerns or conflicts not appropriate for the authors. Keep reviewer comments professional and focused on evidence.

Review Timelines

Respond to invitations promptly and submit reviews within the requested timeframe. If delays arise, notify the editorial office.

Need Help?

Contact the editorial office if you need guidance on scope, ethics, or review criteria.