Reviewers also receive guidance on evaluating glycan nomenclature, analytical validation, and data availability statements for carbohydrate research.

Effective reviews begin with a brief summary of the manuscript and its main findings, followed by clearly labeled major and minor comments. Major comments focus on methodological issues, data integrity, and interpretation, while minor comments address clarity, formatting, or missing citations. Providing specific suggestions helps authors respond efficiently and improves the overall quality of the final publication.

Reviewers should confirm that data availability statements are present and that key datasets or analytical workflows are accessible when needed for verification. For studies involving human or animal research, confirm that ethics approvals and consent statements are documented. If any irregularities are detected, raise them confidentially with the editor so the issue can be assessed appropriately.

When reviewing a revision, compare the authors' response letter to the updated manuscript. Confirm that major methodological issues and data concerns have been resolved, and note any remaining limitations. If new experiments were added, ensure that the methods and results are fully described. Clear revision evaluation helps editors reach fair decisions efficiently.

Allocate time to assess methods first, then review results and conclusions. A structured approach keeps reviews focused and timely.

Confidential comments to the editor should be factual and focused on ethics or conflicts.