Peer Review Discussion

class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide

.title[
# Peer Review Discussion
]
.author[
### Jinliang Yang
]
.date[
### Mar. 8th, 2024
]

---

# Points to cover in the review:

- ### 1. Novelty

- ### 2. Quality

- ### 3. Clarity

- ### 4. Reproduciblity

----------

#### Muller’s Ratchet in Cassava
> [Long et al., 2024](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.14.580345v1)

#### Urbanization and reduced genetic diversity in fish
> [Karachaliou et al., 2024](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.20.581210v1)

---

# Points to cover in the review:
### Novelty

- What are the main claims of the paper and how significant are they?

- How novel is the work? Are the conclusions worth knowing?

- Is this paper important in its discipline?

- Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

---

# Points to cover in the review:

### Quality

- Do the data and analyses support the authors’ claims?

- Is the stated purpose achieved throughout the paper?

- Would additional work improve the manuscript?

- Is the experimentation design appropriate for the purpose of the study?

---

# Points to cover in the review:

### Clarity

- Evaluate clarity, style and readability of the paper to scientists in the field.

- Would you recommend the author seek the service of a professional science writer?

---

# Points to cover in the review:

### Reproduciblity

- Are original data (and/or code) deposited in appropriate repositories?

- Are details of the methodology sufficient to allow the experiments to be reproduced?