Dear @Dickson, thanks for sharing the question. There were many similar and related threads where I have taken part. Here are some of them with fine answers and resources within.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_become_a_good_reviewer

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_criteria_to_be_a_reviewer_Can_all_authours_be_reviewers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_do_a_good_review_for_an_article_to_journal

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_should_be_considered_as_a_reviewer_by_academic_journals

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_be_a_good_reviewer

https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_a_journal_asks_you_to_suggest_a_reviewer_for_your_paper_what_is_your_reaction_And_next_what_are_the_specific_things_that_you_would_do

 A good peer reviewer must be guided by HONESTY, OBJECTIVITY, and INTEGRITY. S/he must NOT in any circumstance, defy his/her privilege for any personal gain by disclosing his/her identity to authors they are reviewing their manuscripts. They must CLOSELY HEED to the INSTRUCTIONS and POLICIES of the academic journal that binds all peer reviewers. S/he must view the opportunity as a SCHOLARLY and HONORARY opportunity dedicated to sharpening his/her research capabilities and expertise in his/her field of study and/or research.

Dickson Adom

Very important question

The peer reviewer must have credibility, clarity, impartiality, professionalism, and objectivity as well While maintain timely and non-boring completion of the peer reviewer

Apart from the above mentioned characteristics of a peer reviewer. To me, I think that a peer reviewer should be someone who has a good imaginative skills and knowledge concerning the subject.

I agree with Dickson:"HONESTY, OBJECTIVITY, and INTEGRITY" are the mainfundamental characteristics for a good peer reviewer.

I should add another fundamental issue, that he should manage the adequate "TIME" to read serenely, the whole paper, before rushing to conclusions that may reveal mis-reading some parts of the text...

I wouldn't accept reviewing a text if I don't have the adequate time to perform that task correctly.

To add to the list I believe a good reviewer is one who is motivated by a sincere interest of refining the paper to of a publishing standard as against negative reviews aimed at trashing the paper.

I give importance to the design and clarity of the hypothesis tested by the researcher.There shouldn't be any major technical flaws in the design.

A good peer review is that which makes valid suggestions on how the quality of a paper can be improved upon. It must be free from bias, clear and credible. It must also be conducted 'timely' (because some reviewers take ages to return their reviews to editors).   

Peer reviewer should be technically competent, sound, honest, credible and time bound.,

Hi

I think the most important qualities is to be knowledgeable (specialist) and honest. 

Liqaa 

The peer reviewer should the technically examine the paper in depth and add value to it, rather than only criticising the paper. The other important characteristic is to be ethical.

What makes a good peer reviewer of research papers?

I agreed with the reviewer's criteria as shared by other researchers / scholars - think a peer reviewer should also display the following attributes:

How to become a peer reviewer is depending on one's research expertise & experience profile which can be noticed by some journal editors.  In order to encourage others to become reviewers, they can refer to a reviewer checklist in the following first link (this is just a typical checklist whereby some journals have their own review guidelines).  Also when reviewers are reviewing some manuscripts, they can earn some brownie points in Publon by registering what review they'd completed (see the 2nd link)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308875190_Manuscript_Review_Template_-_Feel_Free_to_Download

https://publons.com/home/

Research Manuscript Review Template - Feel Free to Download

Dear Prof. Han,

Thank you for your exhaustive and rich information on the subject under discussion. Best regards.

                                                                                               Dickson Adom

Dear Prof Chen,

Thanks for highlighting the great benefits of the peer reviewing process. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof Abdul,

I deeply appreciate the insights on requirements of reviewers from ELSEVIER to enrich the discussions. Best regards.

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Maria,

Thanks for highlighting the need for reviewers to be sincere in their review by making sure they have adequate time to do it thoroughly. I deeply appreciate your contribution. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Sushil,

I am very grateful for your valuable contribution on reviewers not just critiquing but adding value to reviewed manuscripts via their rich and comprehensive suggestions. Thank you.

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Liqaa,

Wonderful and important comment on the need for a reviewer to be a staunch figure (specialist) in the field of the paper s/he is asked to review. Thank you

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Sircar,

It is interesting how you have craftily woven all the good traits of a reviewer in just some few words. Thank you so much for enriching the discussion. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Emeka,

Thank you for your great opinion on the subject and placing great value in the substantial suggestions reviewers are to make while they identify the flaws in the paper they review. Thanks and best regards.

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Amit,

I appreciate genuinely, how you stressed on the need for reviewers to pay close heed to the technicalities of the paper they review. Great comment. Thank you.

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Jackson,

Many thanks for enlightening us on the driving force that should be behind the acceptance to be a peer reviewer which is sincerity to improve the state of the paper to meet the taste of global readership while heightening its quality in the improvement of the state of life of people and communities. Best regards bro.

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Kong,

I greatly value your powerful comment on reviewers possessing good imaginative skills aside from their expertise in the field of research. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Salam,

I thank you very much for your contribution especially the need for reviewers to manuscripts on a timely basis without unnecessarily increasing the anxieties of authors. Best regards my brother

Dickson Adom

Dear @Dickson, thanks for sharing the question. There were many similar and related threads where I have taken part. Here are some of them with fine answers and resources within.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_become_a_good_reviewer

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_criteria_to_be_a_reviewer_Can_all_authours_be_reviewers

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_do_a_good_review_for_an_article_to_journal

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_should_be_considered_as_a_reviewer_by_academic_journals

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_be_a_good_reviewer

https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_a_journal_asks_you_to_suggest_a_reviewer_for_your_paper_what_is_your_reaction_And_next_what_are_the_specific_things_that_you_would_do

Dear Prof. Ljubomir,

Thank you so much for digging deep for insightful views on the subject. You have demonstrated that you are indeed a true scholar. Best regards

Dickson Adom

This is an important question, one that affects greatly the Science that is beeing produced and presented. One important notion, is that we need to provide training to the PhD Students on how to review papers (e.g. i had a class in the first year of PhD, on how to write and review papers), because i know a lot of cases of my fellow PhD students that have no clue on how to review a paper, and without proper training and motivation, will not be able to be good reviewers in the future.

Dear,

Is an important issue. Thanks for sharing! I agree with the position of colleague Leonardo Pedro Vilhena Martins. This is something that is rarely observed in PhD programs!

Dear Prof. Leonardo and Prof. Osmar,

Thank you immensely for your good endorsement for equipping Ph.D. students with the skills required for reviewing manuscripts. Best regards

Dickson Adom

What makes a good peer reviewer of research papers?

Scholars usually get the opportunity from academic journals to review manuscripts. What is required of the scholar who earns this opportunity?

Dear Dickson Adom,

Thanks for the question sharing. I believe, it is a valuable discussion. In regard to opinions of the previous colleagues, I interest to look at the interrelationship perspective, who are the involved actors of the peer review process, e.g., the editors, authors, and the reviewers themselves. Besides "how to be" and "what are the requirement" which may seem from the editor and authorship concerns, the reviewer concern may need to be considered here. As it is mentioned by Dr. Leonardo and Prof. Osmar, how to motivate one to be a good reviewer is needed to be elucidated. I think, besides the editors and authors, the reviewers themselves will get the beneficial matters within the peer reviewer process.

A'ang Subiyakto

Dear Prof. A'ang Subiyakto,

I truly appreciate your beneficial inputs to the discussion, especially the training that reviewers gain from the peer review process. Thank you sincerely.

Dickson Adom

What makes a good peer reviewer? That is a great question. There are several things that reviewers can do in order to produce a good review, here are 4:

1) Assuming that there is nothing massively wrong with the paper: Try to review the paper for what it is rather than the paper that you would have written.

2) Produce the review within the turnaround time that the editor asks you to meet. Sitting on an article for weeks or months before even reading it is not good.

3) Be precise when recommending further reading/sources. Simply advising the author to read "the ilterature on....." or even "read the work of Smith..." is too vague.  Better to recommend some specific paper (or book),  at least as a starting point from which the author can then explore for related useful literature. In my experience the reviewers of the top journals provide a list of further reading in the format of a bibliography, even when rejecting papers.

4) Don't use the review process to showboat

As far as I have seen ,

Improvement of the work in terms of presentation and things we miss . One of the key things is to be diligent and objective .

Become a great reviewer with these resources!

As a reviewer, there are a whole host of skills you need to hone, from critical evaluation through diplomacy to promotion...

        Get acquainted with the peer review process

Start by watching a video about the value of the peer review process, hearing from early career researchers and journal editors about how peer review can help support high quality content...

In order to carry out the highest quality review possible, you need to take ethics into consideration. The online lecture Ethics responsibilities for Reviewers covers what you should do if you come across scientific misconduct and breach of publishing ethics. It’s not your sole responsibility as a reviewer to uncover plagiarism, fraud and other ethics issues, but you are in a good position to highlight scientific misconduct if you do come across it. The lecture will give you the information you need on ethics for reviewers...

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/become-a-great-reviewer-with-these-resources

Dear Prof Alex,

I appreciate your opinion on reviewers offering specific suggestions to easily aid authors find reliable sources of information to heighten the quality of their papers. Many thanks

Dickson Adom

 Dear Prof  Murthy,

I'm grateful for emphasizing the two foundational traits a good reviewer must cultivate. Thank you

Dickson Adom

in addition to fine answers contributed, I think it is better for a researcher to avoid  acceptance to review work outside  his or her area of expertise!

Dear Prof. Olusola,

Of course, for an expert review. Many thanks for your valuable suggestion. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Ljubomir,

I know I can always count on you for insightful direction. Many thanks for offering the valuable information on the subject to me. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear brother Prof. Salam,

Many thanks for your insightful and valuable opinion my brother. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear Prof. Tariq,

Thanks for your insightful answer. Best regards

Dickson Adom

1-Expertise on the subject matter, Do not accept to review works you do not have expertise

2-Ensure Adequate understanding of the objective and problem statement

3-Ascertain the methodology intend to solve the problems,

4-Fair and sincere, A reviewer's reputation is at stake. If a bias and substandard review are carried out, it is detrimental to reviewers' reputation .

5-Straightforward and Constructive, since the quality of the journal must be upheld or improved

6-Acquainted with the journals Scope and Authors guidelines

7-Timely review will do the Journal a good honour

Dear Prof. Olusola,

Thanks dearly for your detailed information on the subject. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Dear @Dickson, here are some articles about the issue of being a good peer reviewer!

Manuscript Rejection: How to Submit a Revision and Tips on Being a Good Peer Reviewer

 Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development

Article Manuscript Rejection: How to Submit a Revision and Tips on B...

Article Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Ed...

Dear Prof. Ljubomir,

I am very grateful for your great views and insightful information. Thanks so much for enhancing this discussion. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Any way, it will not try to make the authors to write their paper as ..... the reviewer would wright such a paper:))

We will kill the diversity ... only to prove that the reviewers are much better the the authors:))

Of course a real good reviewer can improve significantly a paper through appropriate sugestions.

Dear Prof. Doru,

Thanks for your beautiful and very insightful comment. Best regards

Dickson Adom

Some great references.

Dear Prof. Anirbid,

Thanks for following the discussions and noting the rich sources of references offered by the wonderful colleagues who partook in the discussions. Best regards

Dickson Adom

There is probably no rule as applicable to the activity of peer review as the so-called “golden rule” or law of reciprocity: do not treat others in ways that you do not want to be treated yourself. This holds for the relation of the peer reviewer to the authors, the editor, and even the wider scientific community. As publication pressure and the quantity of submissions continue to increase, so does the need for high-quality peer reviews. Several best practice guidelines and rules have been published before. This document takes a different approach, by highlighting 10 things you should certainly NOT do. I’ve based them on my experiences in the exact sciences/engineering fields, but some of them may well hold true, whatever your discipline...

You are not alone in experiencing pressure to publish. Many authors find themselves in this situation and, when submitting their papers, do so in the hope that their articles will receive fast, fair, complete and constructive peer reviews. Without such peer reviews, the publication system cannot exist. Some systematically decline review invitations with the argument of being too busy. Yes, certainly, we all are. But if you want to see your own papers published, you should realize that, for every submission (not publication!) of your own, you should be willing to review at least two or three papers yourself. But even then there are plenty of ways to thoroughly disappoint the editor, the authors and even to negatively affect the wider scientific community: just follow one or more of the tips below....

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/ten-tips-for-a-truly-terrible-peer-review

Dear Prof. Ljubomir,

I am very grateful for your very insightful comment and rich information on the subject. Best regards

Dickson Adom