Reviewing manuscripts

Who knew? There's a literature on this, and it's kind of fun to read. 

1. How Not to Be Reviewer #2, by Ashley M.L. Brown. Humorous, on point, top-shelf memes
2. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? in Journal of Biology by Virginia Walbot. This is waaaay outside our field but does a fine job of presenting both the phenomenon (flame-thrower reviews) and showing why they exist (bad science can do harm; we do not explicitly train people in how to review papers; we implicitly train people to tear papers apart)
3. The 3 Types of Peer Reviewers by Mike Duncan. This is probably a little closer to our discipline.  

No doubt there's more to be added, but this gives a sense of the task (be a good reviewer) and scope (critical without destroying, constructive without pedantry, etc.)

(image appropriated from http://dailynous.com/2017/02/07/bad-reviewer-2-actually-data-philosophy-journal/)