While I'm not one of those people who get bombarded with dozens of review requests a month, I do enjoy what you might call a steady trickle. Since it's not yet gotten to the point of being overwhelming or productivity-quashing, I pretty much always say yes to anything within my general purview.
Now, reviewing basic science manuscripts is relatively straightforward, right? Did the authors do all the right controls? Are the stats appropriate? Are the findings interesting and reasonably interpreted? Etc, etc. But when it comes to reviewing review papers, I find that beyond general organization and blatant wrongness, I'm not sure where to focus my well-honed critical eye.
Before the one currently in the works, I'd only reviewed two review papers in my limited but illustrious career as a peer reviewer. The first was such an utter decimation of the English language that I had to reject outright due to inability to evaluate jack squat, and the second was so ridiculously awesome that I accepted it with much vigor and enthusiasm. I've written three first-author reviews in the last 6 years or so, and all were accepted with no or very minor revisions.
This sort of thing almost never happens to me when I review (or write!) research manuscripts, and it makes me wonder whether the review process for reviews is more commonly an all-or-nothing situation. What's your experience been? What are you generally looking for when you review a review? Have you ever reviewed (or written) a review that ended up in multiple rounds of revisions?
*Sorry this is such a boring post. My brain has been swimming will all sorts of crazy thoughts this summer, and it's been hard to organize them into something coherent and of more than homeopathic levels of value.