See a Real MeritPeer
Review Report — Redacted Sample
Understand exactly what you receive before you order. This is a real anonymised review report delivered to a researcher who was accepted into a Scopus Q1 journal after applying our feedback.
A Structured Journal-Style Review — Not Generic Advice
Every MeritPeer review follows the same structured format used by leading international journals. You receive a professional, actionable report — not vague suggestions, not generic feedback, not a template response. A real expert review of your real manuscript.
Editorial recommendation (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject) with overall assessment rationale. Usually 150–250 words.
Numbered list of critical issues that must be addressed before submission. Each concern includes the problem, the implication, and a specific suggested fix.
Secondary concerns that should be addressed to strengthen the manuscript. Page and line references included where applicable.
Actionable checklist of every change required before submission, prioritised by impact on acceptance likelihood.
This manuscript presents an interesting investigation into [redacted]. The research question is clearly stated and the methodology is generally appropriate. However, the manuscript requires significant revision before it is suitable for submission to [redacted]. The primary concerns relate to the statistical analysis in Section 3 and the incomplete literature review. See Major Concerns below.
The ANOVA test applied on page [redacted] is inappropriate for the non-normally distributed data presented in Figure [redacted]. A Kruskal-Wallis test should be applied instead, with post-hoc Dunn correction for multiple comparisons. Please re-run the analysis and update all related results, tables, and discussion.
The introduction does not cite [redacted] (2023) or [redacted] (2024), which are directly relevant to your research question and were published in the target journal. Omission of these recent publications will be noted by editors familiar with the field.
The conclusion on page [redacted] claims causality from an observational study design. This must be revised to reflect the correlational nature of the findings. The study design does not support causal inference.
This sample is from a real anonymised MeritPeer review. Identifying information, journal names, and author details have been redacted.
See the Difference Expert Review Makes
Order your review today. Free personalised quote within 24 hours.