Peer-review working draft — {{REVIEW_ID}}

Private working document. Human review, policy checks, and factual verification are required. Do not submit this scaffold with unresolved placeholders. Do not make or announce an editorial decision.

Intake record

• Reviewer capacity: {{REVIEWER_CAPACITY}}
• Peer-review model: {{PEER_REVIEW_MODEL}}
• Declared processing plan: {{AI_PLAN}}
• Manuscript text is not embedded by the generator.
• Reconfirm conflicts, competence limits, tool use, confidentiality, and deletion or retention obligations before submission.

Comments to authors

Evidence-bounded summary

[Write a neutral summary of the question, design, and principal claims. Do not invent findings or imply that unperformed analyses were run.]

Strengths

[Identify specific strengths supported by a manuscript location or supplied material.]

Major comments

Major comment M1

• Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or claim ID]
• Observation: [State what is reported, missing, inconsistent, or unsupported]
• Evidence or criterion: [Cite manuscript evidence, a method principle, venue policy, or reporting item]
• Why it matters: [Explain the consequence for validity, interpretation, reproducibility, ethics, or reporting]
• Requested action: [Request clarification, correction, analysis, evidence, or a bounded revision]

Minor comments

Minor comment m1

• Location: [Section, page, line, figure, table, or reference ID]
• Observation: [State the local clarity, consistency, citation, figure, or reporting issue]
• Evidence or criterion: [Identify the relevant evidence or criterion]
• Why it matters: [Explain the reader-facing consequence]
• Requested action: [Request a specific correction or clarification]

Methods, statistics, and reproducibility

[Summarize only assessed issues. Distinguish reporting gaps from design or analysis concerns and state where specialist review is needed.]

Ethics, transparency, figures, tables, and citations

[Record specific, evidence-backed issues. Do not allege misconduct; route credible integrity concerns through the journal process.]

Limitations of this review

[State competence limits, unavailable materials, analyses not independently reproduced, and unresolved uncertainty.]

Confidential comments to editor

Keep this channel separate from comments to authors. Follow the venue policy. Do not place ordinary scientific criticism only here.

Reviewer disclosures

• Conflicts and editor clearance: [State the disclosed status without unnecessary personal detail]
• Competence limits or specialist review needed: [State areas]
• Assistance or tools used and required disclosure: [State policy-compliant details]
• Confidentiality or retention issue: [State any unresolved process concern]

Editorial-process or integrity concerns

[Describe only substantiated process, ethics, confidentiality, or integrity concerns and their evidence locations. Avoid accusations and avoid an editorial outcome.]