[Google spreadsheet link][1] with our final categories of reviewer guidelines and examples / "implementation intentions". Open science-relevant guidelines are highlighted blue. Science (AAAS) [article calling for peer review data to be released and analyzed][2]. Reviewers can and should promote transparency and replicability. - Skilled reviewers can help filter out weak science and can help authors understand how to strengthen their science. - Skilled reviewers can educate and influence editors. - Establishing a reputation as a good reviewer is a wise career move that increases your cultural capital and your ability to influence the field. This SIPS workshop will be a work session in which participants will work on crafting a set of tips for TOPS-oriented reviewers. We hope to end up with a document that will be widely disseminated. To provide grist for the mill, we have amassed new and extant expert advice. We asked editors for tips for reviewers: One of the files below is a digest of the 21 responses we received. Another is a reprint of an APS *Observer* column by Roddy Roediger offering 12 tips for reviewers. Roddy referenced a chapter on reviewing by Tesser and Martin (2006), and we include a preprint of that. A fourth document is an excerpt from Schönbrodt, F. D., Maier, M., Heene, M., & Zehetleitner, M. (2015). Commitment to research transparency. Retrieved from http://www.researchtransparency.org. Fifth is Steve Lindsay's more or less random thoughts on reviewing. For comparison purposes we also link to various publishers' advice about reviewing: [Wiley][3] [Elsevier][4] [Taylor & Francis][5] [AAAS (Science)][6] Our hope is that workshop participants will have reviewed these materials BEFORE the workshop. Indeed, even if you are going to do something else during the workshop (so many options!), you might be interested in reading these documents. And if you have suggestions for additional documents please let slindsay@uvic.ca know about them. During the workshop we will work to create a taxonomy and summary of these materials and then to add ideas arising from the group and synthesize it all into SIPS Tips for Reviewers. [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TmHoRwwp8PBGDlSOdOl2I9E8eaCcmFRJQkBmoXe2qa4/edit?usp=sharing [2]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/256 [3]: https://authorservices.wiley.com/asset/photos/reviewers.html/journal-reviewers.html/Top_Tips_for_Peer_Review.pdf [4]: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/career-tips-and-advice/ten-tips-from-an-editor-on-undertaking-academic-peer-review-for-journals [5]: http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/top-5-tips-on-peer-review/ [6]: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2001/04/peer-review-techniques-novices