How to become a good reviewer

As we all know, after our article is submitted, it will be assigned by editors to corresponding peer experts for review. Here, I will outline a few principles of their work, hoping to provide some help and caution for newcomers who are about to participate in the review process and for the authors submitting their work:

• What is the main problem addressed by this paper? Do the Abstract and Introduction clearly describe this problem? Do you think the problem proposed by this paper really exists and is a significant issue in the relevant field?
• Does the paper mention and summarize previous work addressing this issue? Are the strengths and weaknesses of previous work summarized (potentially very briefly)? What level is the previous work summarized in the paper? (What is the level of the cited articles?) Do you think the summary of previous work is reasonable? How does the paper’s solution differ from previous work? (Is the paper’s solution innovative? Introduction – our contribution)
• Does the solution in the paper have a certain theoretical depth? (Is it related to method design? Algorithm design? Is there a theoretical performance analysis of your method? Mathematical modeling?)
• Does the solution in the paper have a complete system? (Is there a system deployed to address real-world problems, and has the work in the paper already established a complete system platform?)
• How is the solution proposed in the paper (algorithms, protocols, etc.) verified? Is it simulated in a software environment? Or was a system built for validation in a real environment? If you are using software tools, are your tools widely recognized and commonly used in the field?
• Does the paper compare with classic works of predecessors during the verification stage? Is the selection of comparison metrics reasonable (multiple metrics, are they widely recognized metrics, or are they self-defined metrics)? How does it compare with others? (BaseLine, classic popular methods, the level of literature reference)
• Is the language expression of the paper acceptable (did you encounter any difficulties while reading as a reader)? It can be viewed from two aspects (1 for language expression and 2 for logical expression). Are there any basic grammatical errors in the English writing of the paper? (If so, they must be pointed out) Issues with tenses, third person singular, and spelling errors.
• Is the layout of the paper aesthetically pleasing? Is the paper edited using Word or LaTex? Are the figures (vector images) and tables in the paper clear and visually appealing? Is there a clear introduction to the figures and tables in the main text?
• Where is the innovation in this paper?✓ Problem innovation (This problem was not discovered by others before, but I found it, and it is very meaningful). How did you find this problem? Is the problem you mentioned real?✓ Method innovation (For a specific problem, the method used by previous works is not as good as the method I proposed). How did you come up with this method? (There is a logical validity issue here)✓ Theoretical innovation (For a specific problem, a new mathematical theory is used for analysis and resolution, which has not been used by previous works. This is a form of method innovation but has a more complete mathematical theoretical foundation)✓ System innovation (For a specific problem, previous works have not built a system in a real environment; I built one that works quite well.)