I have recently been invited to peer review an article for the first time. I must admit I went into the process expecting to find at least a number of faults with the manuscript and the idea that I could rely at least somewhat on the number of reviews I have received on my own work to structure my own review.
However, it turns out that while this is in my field, this is a vastly different paper from the ones I ve been publishing. I tend to submit manuscripts that present some new kind of design or method, when the one I have been asked to review is an extraction and analysis of data, and it seems to me well done.
The target and the reason it was chosen is clear, they clearly present their methods and the reason they chose certain tools, the vast majority of references are recent and relevant, the topic current, and the results very clearly presented and formatted, accompanied by a great amount of figures and tables that either make it more comprehensive or condense data that would be tiring in-text. Even the level of english is good.
I find that I have no negative comments to make, but I am afraid I'll come off as unhelpful and too naive. However it seems to tick all the common boxes and even the fact that I have to search for something negative to write seems like it should be testimony enough that this is good work. The only thing that makes me less confident is that this is my first review. Is there such a thing as too positive? And what kind of impact would there be if, say, the view of the other reviewer was vastly different from mine?
Note: I am still a student but with significant research experience.