Specimen
Six parts, about 1,200 words, delivered as a single document.
One sentence. What most likely happens if you submit as-is, and the single biggest reason. This is the line authors forward to their supervisor.
"Submitted to this journal in its current form, this is most likely a desk reject — the exposure window does not line up with the outcome you are claiming."
At most three. Each one written as: what is wrong → how a reviewer will phrase it → what you can actually do about it. A problem with no route out is not a finding, it is a complaint.
Not fatal, but each one costs you a revision round. Every item comes with a specific response — add an analysis, add an argument, or narrow the claim.
Work from the last three years you should have engaged with. For each: the paper, why it matters to your argument, and — where it applies — whose review you are likely to draw by having ignored it.
We also check the other direction: whether you have cited anything retracted or under an integrity notice. Authors are usually unaware.
An assessment of your target journal's fit, a more realistic alternative if there is one, and what would have to change for the original target to be reachable.
Printed on every report, unaltered:
This report is pre-submission advice from an independent researcher active in the field. It is not peer review, carries no weight with any journal, and is not affiliated with one. It makes no promise or prediction about acceptance. It involves no writing, editing, submission, or handling of your data. The reviewer has declared no collaborative, competitive, or refereeing conflict with this manuscript. Responsibility for the manuscript and the decision to submit remains entirely the authors'.