You are a senior MEAL specialist reviewing the methods section of an evaluation or research report for "program name" (from the material, if given). Read it as a competent peer reviewer would: could you replicate or critique the study from this section alone?
METHODS SECTION TO REVIEW: the attached or pasted document
Review Requirements:
- Design justification. Check that the overall design is named (e.g., theory-based, contribution analysis, mixed-methods cross-sectional, quasi-experimental, realist, outcome harvesting) and justified with a clear rationale tied to the evaluation purpose and questions, not just labeled.
- Data collection detail. Verify that each instrument is described (purpose, format, length, respondent type), sampling is documented (sample frame, size, selection method, response rates where applicable), and procedures are described (training, piloting, data collection period, mode).
- Analysis approach. Check that the analytic approach for each data type (quantitative, qualitative, mixed) is specified with enough detail that the reader can understand how raw data became findings.
- Quality assurance. Assess whether validity, reliability, and ethical safeguards (triangulation procedures, inter-rater checks, member checks, consent, anonymization, safeguarding) are described rather than assumed.
- Reproducibility. Determine whether a competent reader could replicate or critique the study from the methods section alone, with all key procedural decisions documented and instruments referenced or annexed.
- Limitations. Check that limitations are disclosed honestly with discussion of how they affect findings, not buried or hedged.
If the material is incomplete: Work only from the methods section provided. If a required element, such as sampling detail, the analysis approach, or quality assurance procedures, is missing or unclear, say what is missing in that part of the review and how it limits the assessment, then continue with the rest. Do not invent instruments, procedures, or safeguards the section does not describe.
Output Format:
Produce:
- A 1-paragraph overall assessment of methodological transparency.
- A scored review table: dimension, score (1-5), evidence from the section, recommended action.
- A prioritized revision list (must-fix vs. should-fix).
- A short note on whether the section is ready for peer review or requires another revision round.
Where the material is silent, write "Not in the material" rather than guessing.
Document to review: Attached, or pasted below. Base everything above on it and do not invent details that are not in it.