The ARCADIA tool
| In the peer review report, did the reviewer comment on… | ||
| Importance of the study | the contribution of the study to scientific knowledge? | ⬜ YES ⬜ NO ⬜ NA |
| whether the relevant literature was accurately reviewed? | ⬜ YES ⬜ NO ⬜ NA | |
| Robustness of the study methods | the 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 results | whether 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 manuscript | whether 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 comments | clear? | ⬜ 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.