This is the generalized reviewer criteria I use to conduct peer reviews in graduate courses. It is generalized from my experiences as a reviewer for a variety of TPC journals:
Significance/purpose: What is your assessment of the manuscript’s potential contribution for the field of TPC? Is the manuscript timely? Does it present new approaches, findings, and/or theoretical implications? Do you feel these findings will be useful to other TPC scholars?
Methodology: What is your assessment of the manuscript’s use of methods, theory, and/or overall scaffolding? Is the overall framework of the manuscript justified, given its topic? Is it sufficiently explored so as to be clear to other scholars? Is it sufficiently grounded in other methodological or theoretical precedents?
Findings: What is your assessment of the manuscript’s rendering of research findings or extended examples or cases? Are the findings rendered with sufficient clarity to provide necessary context for the research or development of the approach? Are the findings sufficiently connected with the methodology so that it is clear how they work together to form an argument?
Style/organization: What is your assessment of the quality of writing in the manuscript? Are all concepts sufficiently explained? Is the manuscript organized in a logical, comprehensible manner? Is correct grammar and syntax adhered to rigorously?