MORE SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA (IMPACT)
Impact: Novelty/Fundamental and Broad Interest (1–4 scale) SCORE = 2
A score here should be accompanied by a statement delineating the most interesting and/or important conceptual finding(s), as they stand right now with the current scope of the paper. A “1” would be expected to be understood for the importance by a layperson but would also be of top interest (have lasting impact) on the field.
How big of an advance would you consider the findings to be if fully supported but not extended? It would be appropriate to cite literature to provide context for evaluating the advance. However, great care must be taken to avoid exaggerating what is known comparing these findings to the current dogma (see Box 2). Citations (figure by figure) are essential here.
Yes, there was general agreement that this paper does provide a significant advancement in this area of research without the requirement of further experiments.
Impact: Extensibility (1–4 or N/A scale) SCORE = 3
Has an initial result (e.g., of a paradigm in a cell line) been extended to be shown (or implicated) to be important in a bigger scheme (e.g., in animals or in a human cohort)? This criterion is only valuable as a scoring parameter if it is present, indicated by the N/A option if it simply doesn’t apply. The extent to which this is necessary for a result to be considered of value is important. It should be explicitly discussed by a reviewer why it would be required. What work (scope and expected time) and/or discussion would improve this score, and what would this improvement add to the conclusions of the study? Care should be taken to avoid casually suggesting experiments of great cost (e.g., “repeat a mouse-based experiment in humans”) and difficulty that merely confirm but do not extend (see Bad Behaviors, Box 2).