# peer-review

> Conduct structured manuscript reviews with section-by-section checklists and constructive feedback. Use when reviewing papers before submission, providing feedback to colleagues, or preparing reviewer responses.

- Author: laoliu5280
- Repository: Hypogenic-AI/mechanistic-llm-tools-claude
- Version: 20260124230619
- Stars: 0
- Forks: 0
- Last Updated: 2026-02-08
- Source: https://github.com/Hypogenic-AI/mechanistic-llm-tools-claude
- Web: https://mule.run/skillshub/@@Hypogenic-AI/mechanistic-llm-tools-claude~peer-review:20260124230619

---

---
name: peer-review
description: Conduct structured manuscript reviews with section-by-section checklists and constructive feedback. Use when reviewing papers before submission, providing feedback to colleagues, or preparing reviewer responses.
---

# Peer Review

Structured framework for reviewing academic manuscripts.

## When to Use

- Reviewing own paper before submission
- Providing feedback to colleagues
- Serving as conference/journal reviewer
- Preparing author response to reviews
- Self-assessment of draft quality

## Review Framework

### Overall Assessment First

Before detailed review, form initial impressions:

1. **Contribution**: What is the main contribution?
2. **Significance**: How important is this for the field?
3. **Novelty**: What is new compared to prior work?
4. **Soundness**: Are the claims supported by evidence?
5. **Clarity**: Is the paper well-written?

### Section-by-Section Review

## Title and Abstract

| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| Clarity | Does title clearly convey the contribution? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Accuracy | Does title accurately reflect content? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Self-contained | Can abstract be understood alone? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Complete | Does abstract cover problem, method, results? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Concise | Is abstract appropriately brief (150-250 words)? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |

## Introduction

| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| Motivation | Is the problem motivation clear and compelling? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Gap | Is the research gap clearly identified? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Contributions | Are contributions clearly stated? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Scope | Is the scope appropriate? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Organization | Is paper organization previewed? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |

## Related Work

| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| Coverage | Are relevant papers cited? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Organization | Is related work logically organized? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Positioning | Is this work positioned vs. prior work? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Fairness | Is prior work fairly characterized? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Recency | Are recent papers included? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |

## Method

| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| Clarity | Is the method clearly explained? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Reproducibility | Could someone reproduce this? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Justification | Are design choices justified? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Completeness | Are all components described? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Formalism | Is notation clear and consistent? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |

## Experiments

| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| Setup | Is experimental setup complete? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Baselines | Are baselines appropriate and fair? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Datasets | Are datasets appropriate? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Metrics | Are metrics appropriate and justified? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Significance | Is statistical significance reported? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Analysis | Is there analysis beyond raw numbers? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Ablations | Are ablation studies included? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |

## Discussion and Conclusion

| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| Limitations | Are limitations honestly discussed? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Implications | Are broader implications considered? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Future work | Is future work mentioned? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Summary | Does conclusion summarize key findings? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |

## Presentation

| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|-----------|----------|--------|
| Writing | Is the writing clear and grammatical? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Figures | Are figures clear and informative? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Tables | Are tables well-formatted? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Captions | Are captions self-contained? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Length | Is paper appropriate length? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |

## Review Template

### Summary
[2-3 sentences summarizing the paper's contribution]

### Strengths
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
- [Strength 3]

### Weaknesses
- [Weakness 1]
- [Weakness 2]
- [Weakness 3]

### Detailed Comments

#### Major Issues
[Issues that must be addressed for acceptance]

1. **[Issue title]**
   - Location: [Section/page]
   - Problem: [Description]
   - Suggestion: [How to address]

#### Minor Issues
[Issues that would improve the paper but aren't critical]

1. [Issue and suggestion]
2. [Issue and suggestion]

#### Questions for Authors
1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]

### Recommendation
[ ] Accept
[ ] Minor revisions
[ ] Major revisions
[ ] Reject

### Confidence
[ ] High - I am an expert in this area
[ ] Medium - I am familiar with this area
[ ] Low - This is outside my expertise

## Constructive Feedback Principles

### Do
- Be specific about problems
- Suggest solutions when possible
- Acknowledge strengths
- Separate major from minor issues
- Explain reasoning
- Be professional and respectful

### Don't
- Be vague ("this is unclear")
- Be dismissive
- Focus only on negatives
- Request unreasonable changes
- Let personal preferences bias review
- Be unprofessional

### Phrasing Guide

| Instead of... | Try... |
|---------------|--------|
| "This is wrong" | "I believe this may be incorrect because..." |
| "Poorly written" | "The writing could be clearer in section X" |
| "Missing citations" | "Consider citing [specific area/papers]" |
| "Not novel" | "The novelty over [prior work] isn't clear" |
| "Weak experiments" | "The experimental evaluation could be strengthened by..." |

## Quality Checklist

Before finalizing review:

- [ ] Summary accurately reflects paper
- [ ] All major issues identified
- [ ] Issues are specific and actionable
- [ ] Suggestions for improvement provided
- [ ] Strengths acknowledged
- [ ] Tone is constructive and professional
- [ ] Recommendation matches the review content
- [ ] No confidential information disclosed

## References

See `references/` folder for:
- `review_checklist.md`: Detailed checklist by paper type