This skill provides a complete guide to paper review, self-examination, and critical analysis.
Checklist
- Preliminary assessment: grasp the core of the paper
- Detailed section-by-section review
- Assessment of methodological and statistical rigor
- Reproducibility and transparency check
- Write the review report
- Provide specific suggestions for improvement
I. Peer Review Workflow
Stage 1: Preliminary Assessment
Key questions:
- What is the core research question or hypothesis?
- What are the main findings and conclusions?
- Is the work scientifically sound and meaningful?
- Is it suitable for the target journal/conference?
- Are there any obvious major flaws?
Output: a brief summary of 2-3 sentences.
Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review
Abstract and Title
- Does the abstract accurately reflect the research content and conclusions?
- Is the title specific, accurate, and informative?
Introduction
- Is the background information sufficient and up to date?
- Is the research question clearly motivated and justified?
- Is relevant prior research appropriately cited?
Methods
- Can other researchers reproduce the study based on the description?
- Are the methods suitable for addressing the research question?
- Are the statistical methods appropriate?
Results
- Are the results presented logically and clearly?
- Are the figures and tables appropriate, clear, and correctly labeled?
- Are all relevant results included?
Discussion
- Are the conclusions supported by the data?
- Are the study limitations acknowledged and discussed?
- Are speculations clearly distinguished from data-supported conclusions?
Stage 3: Methodological and Statistical Rigor
Statistical assessment:
- Are the statistical assumptions satisfied?
- Are effect sizes and p-values reported?
- Are multiple testing corrections appropriately applied?
- Is the sample size supported by a power analysis?
Experimental design:
- Are the controls appropriate and sufficient?
- Are the replicates sufficient?
- Are potential confounders controlled?
II. Review Report Structure
Summary Statement
## 总体评估
**研究概述**：[1-2句话概括]
**总体建议**：[接受/小修/大修/拒稿]
**关键优点**：
1. [优点1]
2. [优点2]
**关键缺点**：
1. [缺点1]
2. [缺点2]
Major Comments
Key issues that significantly affect the validity of the paper:
- Fundamental methodological flaws
- Inappropriate statistical analysis
- Unsupported or overstated conclusions
- Missing key controls or experiments
Minor Comments
Issues that improve clarity and completeness:
- Unclear figure/table labels or legends
- Missing methodological details
- Typographical or grammatical errors
III. Critical Thinking Framework
Bias Detection
| Type of Bias | Checkpoints |
|---|---|
| Confirmation bias | Are only supportive findings emphasized? |
| Selection bias | Is the sample representative of the target population? |
| Publication bias | Are negative results missing? |
| P-hacking | Is there repeated analysis until significance is reached? |
Logical Fallacy Identification
| Type of Fallacy | Performance |
|---|---|
| Post hoc attribution | "B follows A, therefore A caused B" |
| Correlation = causation | Confusing association with causation |
| Hasty generalization | Drawing broad conclusions from a small sample |
| Cherry-picking data | Selecting only supporting evidence |
IV. Self-Review Prompts
Self-check before submission
# Role
你是一位严苛的资深学术审稿人。
# Task
请深入阅读并分析我的论文，撰写严厉但建设性的审稿报告。
# 审查维度
1. **原创性**：实质性突破还是边际增量？
2. **严谨性**：推导是否有跳跃？实验对比是否公平？
3. **一致性**：声称的贡献是否得到验证？
# Output
- Part 1 [Review Report]：Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Rating
- Part 2 [Strategic Advice]：具体改进建议
# Input
投稿目标：[期刊/会议名]
论文内容：[粘贴]
Quick quality check
# Task
快速检查论文是否存在以下问题：
1. 逻辑一致性：引言的声明是否在实验中得到验证？
2. 术语一致性：核心概念是否保持一致命名？
3. 数据支持：所有结论是否有数据支持？
4. 对照完整性：是否与足够的baseline比较？
5. 消融充分性：是否验证了每个关键模块？
# Output
- 无问题：[检测通过]
- 有问题：分点列出位置和具体问题
V. Review Tone
Best practices
- Constructive: Frame criticism as opportunities for improvement
- Specific: Provide concrete examples and actionable suggestions
- Balanced: Acknowledge strengths and weaknesses
- Respectful: Remember that the authors put in a lot of effort
- Objective: Focus on the science, not the scientist
Things to avoid
- Personal attacks or contemptuous language
- Vague criticism without specific examples
- Requesting unnecessary experiments beyond the scope
- Revealing identity in double-blind review
VI. Review Checklist
- The summary statement clearly conveys the overall assessment
- The main issues are clearly identified and argued
- The suggested revisions are specific and actionable
- The statistical methods have been evaluated
- Reproducibility and data availability have been evaluated
- The figures and tables have been evaluated for quality and completeness
- The tone throughout is constructive and professional