Table 4

The ARCADIA tool

In the peer review report, did the reviewer comment on…
Importance of the studythe contribution of the study to scientific knowledge?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
whether the relevant literature was accurately reviewed?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
Robustness of the study methodsthe soundness of the study methods (e.g., study design, outcomes, risk of bias)?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
the suitability of the statistical methods?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
Interpretation and discussion of the study resultswhether the study conclusions answer the research question(s) and correctly summarise the study results?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
whether the study limitations are acknowledged?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
the applicability and generalisability (external validity) of the study results?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
Reporting and transparency of the manuscriptwhether any major deviations from the study protocol are reported?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
whether the completeness of the reporting allows study reproducibility, by verifying the adherence of the manuscript to the corresponding reporting guideline (RG)?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
the presentation (e.g., quality of the written language, tables, figures, etc.) and organisation of the manuscript?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
the availability of study data and material?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
⬜ NA
Were the peer reviewer’s comments…
Characteristics of peer reviewer’s commentsclear?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
constructive?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
objective and, if opportune, supported by evidence?⬜ YES
⬜ NO
  • ARCADIA, Assessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors; NA, Not applicable.