After conducting Steps 1 and 2, the reviewer is better positioned to consider the more subjective question of "Do the claims in the work, weighted by how well they are supported, have sufficient impact to meet the standards of the journal?" By expounding on this topic only after the identification and evaluation of claims, editors and authors will gain a clearer understanding of the logic applied by the reviewer and the reasons for their ultimate decision. This structure should enable a more meaningful scientific debate among the authors, reviewers, and editors.