Bias #1 is that my heart belongs to electron microscopy, so I look for good images with legible scalebars. This is also a place where I know exactly what information should be included in the methods section, so it’s easy to tell what’s missing. We are formatting snobs, so I also look for clear figures (with good captions).

I look for a lot of details in the experimental section, especially for the techniques that I am very familiar with (mostly ones that I use myself). This can be an area where I am weak if it’s a technique that I haven’t used before, but things like missing concentrations and reaction temperatures are pretty easy to spot. We do a fair amount of statistical analysis (limited sample sizes), so I look for even simple things like # of significant figures and presence/lack of standard deviations or margins of error.

Assessing grammar comes pretty naturally to me, so I usually have an opinion on that in the first paragraph. Then I try to turn that off so I can look at the rest of the paper without obsessing over the linguistic errors.

That’s the easiest stuff for me. The next part is making sure that their discussion and conclusions are actually supported by the data they present. Sometimes obvious, sometimes not. This is my big weak area, and it’s a pretty big one, but (I think) I’m getting better at it.