I quote from Chris Langan's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan ) "competency criteria ( http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/ ) . This is a useful reminder for anyone willing to review a paper:

The competency criteria for distinguishing among evaluators:
(1) Comprehension: The evaluator makes sure he fully understands the ideas he evaluates and refrains from attaching extraneous constructions, speculative interpretations, or inappropriate conceptual models (even in the face of uncertainty regarding the proper interpretation).

(2) Discernment: The evaluator possesses the willingness, the knowledge, and the intelligence to properly and thoroughly apply value criteria 1-3.

(3) Neutrality: The evaluator limits his judgments to value criteria 1-3, and withholds final judgment on ideas to which he is unable to apply criteria 1-3 with reasonable certainty (e.g., in fields outside his areas of expertise, or where he bumps up against his intellectual ceiling).

In scholarly discourse, evaluators are required to justify their judgments. Those who display inadequate comprehension, discernment, or neutrality in their judgments, having failed one or more competency criteria, are by definition incompetent. Among incompetent evaluators, the worst-of-breed are obviously those who chronically fail all three competency criteria.