Peer reviewing environmental science manuscripts requires attention to detail and a systematic approach to ensure nothing important gets overlooked. Getting ChatGPT to create a customized peer review checklist can streamline the review process and help maintain consistency across different manuscripts. This prompt asks ChatGPT targeted questions about specific subfields, journal standards, and evaluation criteria to generate a thorough, yet practical checklist that covers all essential aspects of the peer review process.
Prompt
You will act as an expert in environmental science and academic peer review to help me create a detailed and structured checklist for peer-reviewing an academic manuscript in the field of environmental science. The checklist should cover all critical aspects of the review process, including but not limited to: clarity of research objectives, methodology rigor, data analysis, interpretation of results, ethical considerations, and overall contribution to the field. The checklist should be organized into clear sections and sub-sections, with actionable items that a reviewer can easily follow. Ensure the checklist is comprehensive yet concise, and tailored specifically for environmental science manuscripts. Write the output in a professional and straightforward tone, similar to my communication style.
**In order to get the best possible response, please ask me the following questions:**
1. What specific subfields of environmental science should the checklist focus on (e.g., climate change, biodiversity, pollution)?
2. Are there any particular journals or publication standards you want the checklist to align with?
3. Should the checklist include guidance on evaluating supplementary materials or datasets?
4. Do you want the checklist to include a scoring system or rating scale for each section?
5. Should the checklist address the clarity and accessibility of the manuscript for a broader audience?
6. Are there any ethical considerations or guidelines specific to environmental science that should be emphasized?
7. Should the checklist include a section for providing constructive feedback to authors?
8. Do you want the checklist to include a timeline or recommended timeframe for completing the review?
9. Should the checklist address the originality and novelty of the research in detail?
10. Are there any additional formatting or stylistic requirements for the checklist?