One thing I have begun to appreciate more and more recently is that reviewing manuscripts is not a "one size fits all" endeavor. The majority of my reviewing is done at the society journal level (IF 2-10), related to my field. Generally this is a straight forward exercise of reporting back the issues one sees with the research described. Are there flaws in the study? Did the authors miss literature that might change their interpretation? Are there additional data (within reason, folks) that might make a borderline case stronger?
But the process is very different when reviewing or being reviewed for the Big Journals. The tone of the review is critical to the editorial decision. I've seen reviewers be very positive about a manuscript, while sneaking in enough "suggestions" that the revisions would be considered "major" by most standards. Nevertheless, these manuscripts make it through the gauntlet. I've watched as reviewers with little negative to say have framed their review in a manner that has been a death knell for manuscripts. There really seems to be a reviewer-fu art to selling a manuscript to the editor while still making significant changes to the finished paper. In retrospect it makes total sense given the scope of some journals, but I've no one ever mentioned to me as an author or reviewer.
So, Dear Readers, do you change the way you review a manuscript based on the journal, or does the way in which the manuscript is written change the perspective you use to review it?