How much feedback to provide for unsalvageable manuscript during peer review When reviewing a manuscript as a peer reviewer and providing written feedback on a manuscript that is clearly a Reject, how does one decide how much feedback to provide? By &quot;clear Reject,&quot; I mean poorly written, lack of novelty, experiments not satisfactory, issues with references, etc. Should the time be taken to provide comprehensive feedback for all aspects of the paper (i.e., what I'd typically do for a major revision) or do I just note the major components that led to the rejection recommendation? In other words, how much time should I spend providing feedback for a paper that is not reasonably salvageable?
For a manuscript that's so clearly a reject for all the reasons you state, I would not spend much time at all on feedback to the author. Of course you list those reasons for the editor.
If you are feeling generous with your time you could point out one instance of each of the kinds of flaws.