Research Paper Review Checklist

The title, abstract, introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references are present where expected.

The problem statement appears early and explains why the study matters.

Each section prepares the reader for the next section instead of repeating the same claim.

The paper avoids unsupported jumps between background, method, evidence, and conclusion.

Figures, tables, and appendices are introduced in the text before readers need them.

The title identifies the topic without making claims the paper does not prove.

The abstract states the research problem, method, data or material, main result, and contribution.

The abstract does not introduce citations, unexplained abbreviations, or claims missing from the paper.

Keywords match the paper's actual topic, method, and likely reader search terms.

The abstract can stand alone for indexing, supervisor review, or editorial screening.

The opening paragraph introduces the domain and the specific research problem.

The research gap is stated as a gap in knowledge, method, evidence, context, or application.

The aim, objectives, or research questions are clear and answerable within the paper.

The contribution statement explains what is new or useful without overstating originality.

The final introduction paragraph previews the manuscript structure.

Sources are grouped by theme, method, debate, chronology, or technical approach.

The review explains how prior studies relate to the present research question.

Recent and foundational sources are balanced where the discipline requires both.

Contradictions, limitations, or unresolved issues in prior work are identified clearly.

The review leads logically into the study's method, framework, or contribution.

The research design or technical approach is named and justified.

Data sources, datasets, participants, materials, tools, or system components are described with enough detail.

Variables, measures, procedures, algorithms, or analytical steps are explained in the correct order.

Assumptions, constraints, and limitations are stated instead of hidden.

The method directly supports the research questions or objectives.

Hardware, software, instruments, datasets, versions, or environments are documented where relevant.

Baseline methods, control groups, comparison models, or evaluation criteria are stated.

Preprocessing, parameter choices, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria are explained.

The setup separates training, testing, validation, observation, or analysis stages where needed.

Ethics approval, consent, or data-permission details are included when applicable.

Results are organized around the research questions, hypotheses, objectives, or experiments.

Tables and figures are readable, labelled, referenced in text, and not overloaded.

Statistical, qualitative, computational, or comparative findings are interpreted accurately.

Unexpected or negative findings are reported honestly where relevant.

The discussion connects results back to literature, theory, practice, or technical contribution.

Every factual, theoretical, methodological, or borrowed idea has a traceable source.

In-text citations and reference list entries match one another.

The reference style follows supervisor, journal, conference, or institutional requirements.

Sources are real, relevant, and verified by the author.

The manuscript avoids citation padding, missing citations, and unsupported authority claims.

The author can explain the origin of the research idea, data, analysis, and writing decisions.

All reused text, figures, tables, code, instruments, and datasets are attributed correctly.

Similarity risk is checked through proper paraphrasing, citation, quotation, and permissions.

AI-assisted work is disclosed where institutional, journal, or conference policy requires it.

No data, findings, citations, authorship, permissions, or ethics approvals are fabricated.

Sentences are clear, direct, and appropriate for the discipline.

Paragraphs begin with a clear focus and develop one main idea.

Claims are supported with evidence instead of vague intensifiers.

Terminology is consistent across the manuscript.

Grammar, punctuation, transitions, and formatting do not distract from the argument.

The manuscript states what it adds to knowledge, method, evidence, context, tool, or practice.

The novelty claim is supported by the literature review and results.

The contribution is not confused with the broad topic or routine application of a known method.

Limitations are acknowledged so the contribution remains credible.

The conclusion explains contribution without introducing new unsupported claims.

The target journal or conference scope matches the topic, method, article type, and audience.

Word count, template, heading style, reference style, figures, tables, and file type follow instructions.

Required declarations, funding details, conflicts, author contributions, and data statements are prepared.

The cover letter or submission note identifies fit and contribution without exaggeration.

The final files are named, anonymized, and organized according to submission rules.