Here the reviewer(s) should list 2-3 major concerns about the research (if they exist). This may relate to:
Does the title accurately reflect the results?
Experimental design: were the techniques appropriate for the hypothesis? Were suitable controls included? Were new techniques/mutants/cell lines etc. sufficiently characterised to allow the study to be replicated? Were robust statistical methods used?
Do the results support the authors’ conclusions and, if not, what additional experiments would you suggest?
Are there big flaws in the understanding of the current literature and interpretation of the literature that might undermine the interpretation of the current results?
Minor concerns:
Here the reviewer(s) can mention 3-5 minor concerns that are not critical to the understanding and conclusions of the research, but would improve the overall flow or clarity of the manuscript. These concerns might include the following questions:
In general, was the manuscript easy to follow/did it have a logical flow? Were there a lot of typos that needed addressing?
Does the abstract provide a concise summary of the hypotheses and main results?
Were the methods sufficiently detailed to allow the experiments to be repeated?
Were the figures clear and logically arranged? Were the figure legends sufficiently detailed to allow the figures to be understood without reading the main text?
Are the figures representative of the data described in the results section?
Did the authors make all their associated data openly available (e.g. sequencing data, coding)?
Did the discussion address how their results move the field forwards?
Were the citations thorough or were key references missing?