system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
The peer review process

Hello there! I'm an advanced psychology PhD student who has been handed my first manuscript for a peer review and would like some advice.

I'm combing through the manuscript now and, this sounds awful, but... there are so many flaws.

My question is, how much is too much criticism? I want to provide the authors with constructive feedback so they can improve their work, but at the same time, I don't want to come across as vicious or cruel.

All of my criticisms, for the record, involve major content/methodology issues. I'm not nitpicking for grammar (though I am critiquing where is lack of readability and clarity). But I'm on my eleventh comment and haven't even gotten to the results and discussion yet. Should I trim back the number of comments, even if they're serious concerns, to avoid coming across as too condescending? Or should I try to provide as much constructive feedback as possible, even if I'm writing a tome?
gpt
Peer review is not a politeness contest. Be fair, but don't worry about being nice.  
  
If you're churning up enough problems with the methodology and content to write a tome, bring it down to a summary of major points and reject the paper. It's not your job to fix the manuscript, just evaluate it.