--- id: daily-academic-paper-reviewer name: "academic-paper-reviewer" url: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/daily-academic-paper-reviewer author: imbad0202 domain: science tags: ["academic", "research", "paper-review", "peer-review", "education"] install_count: 2100 rating: 4.30 (10 reviews) github: https://github.com/imbad0202/academic-research-skills --- # academic-paper-reviewer > 模拟国际期刊同行评审流程，自动识别论文领域，配置主编、审稿人和反对者，提供多角度评审意见 **Stats**: 2,100 installs · 4.3/5 (10 reviews) ## Before / After 对比 ### 学术论文评审 **Before**: 人工审稿需要邀请多个专家，协调时间安排评审，等待反馈意见可能需要数周，审稿质量受专家主观因素影响，难以获得全面客观的评审意见 **After**: AI 模拟完整期刊评审流程，自动配置 5 位不同角色的审稿人，从多个角度快速提供专业评审意见，识别论文优缺点，几分钟内获得全面的改进建议 | Metric | Before | After | Change | |---|---|---|---| | 审稿周期 | 14天 | 0.1天 | -99% | ## Readme # academic-paper-reviewer # Academic Paper Reviewer v1.9.0 — Multi-Perspective Academic Paper Review Agent Team Simulates a complete international journal peer review process: automatically identifies the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewers (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) who review from four non-overlapping perspectives — methodology, domain expertise, cross-disciplinary viewpoints, and core argument challenges — ultimately producing a structured Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap. **v1.1 Improvements**: - Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer — specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical fallacies, and identifies the strongest counter-arguments - Added `re-review` mode — verification review, focused on checking whether revisions address the review comments - Expanded review team from 4 to 5 members ## Quick Start **Simplest command:** ``` Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file] ``` **Output:** - Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type - Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers - 5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective) - 1 Editorial Decision Letter + Revision Roadmap ## Trigger Conditions ### Trigger Keywords **English**: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy ### Non-Trigger Scenarios Scenario Skill to Use Need to write a paper (not review) `academic-paper` Need in-depth investigation of a research topic `deep-research` Need to revise a paper (already have review comments) `academic-paper` (revision mode) ### Quick Mode Selection Guide Your Situation Recommended Mode Spectrum Need comprehensive review (first submission) full balanced Checking if revisions addressed comments re-review fidelity Quick quality assessment (15 min) quick fidelity Focus only on methods/statistics methodology-focus fidelity Want to learn by doing (guided review) guided originality Want to know this reviewer's own error profile before trusting its scores calibration fidelity **Spectrum** (v3.2): *fidelity* = template-heavy, predictable output; *balanced* = default; *originality* = exploratory, template-light. See `shared/mode_spectrum.md` for the full cross-skill spectrum table. Not sure? Use `full` for pre-submission review, `re-review` for post-revision verification. `calibration` is opt-in — run it once per domain when you want to know the reviewer's FNR/FPR before relying on its rubric scores. ## Agent Team (7 Agents) # Agent Role Phase 1 `field_analyst_agent` Analyzes the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewer identities Phase 0 2 `eic_agent` Journal Editor-in-Chief — journal fit, originality, overall quality Phase 1 3 `methodology_reviewer_agent` Peer Reviewer 1 — research design, statistical validity, reproducibility Phase 1 4 `domain_reviewer_agent` Peer Reviewer 2 — literature coverage, theoretical framework, domain contribution Phase 1 5 `perspective_reviewer_agent` Peer Reviewer 3 — cross-disciplinary connections, practical impact, challenging fundamental assumptions Phase 1 6 **`devils_advocate_reviewer_agent`** **Devil's Advocate — core argument challenges, logical fallacy detection, strongest counter-arguments** **Phase 1** 7 `editorial_synthesizer_agent` Synthesizes all reviews, identifies consensus and disagreements, makes editorial decision Phase 2 ## Orchestration Workflow (3 Phases) ``` User: "Review this paper" | === Phase 0: FIELD ANALYSIS & PERSONA CONFIGURATION === | +-> [field_analyst_agent] -> Reviewer Configuration Card (x5) - Reads the complete paper - Identifies: primary discipline, secondary discipline, research paradigm, methodology type, target journal tier, paper maturity - Dynamically generates specific identities for 5 reviewers: * EIC: Which journal's editor, area of expertise, review preferences * Reviewer 1 (Methodology): Methodological expertise, what they particularly focus on * Reviewer 2 (Domain): Domain expertise, research interests * Reviewer 3 (Perspective): Cross-disciplinary angle, what unique perspective they bring * Devil's Advocate: Specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical gaps | ** Presents Reviewer Configuration to user for confirmation (adjustable) ** | === Phase 1: PARALLEL MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW === | |-> [eic_agent] -------> EIC Review Report | - Journal fit, originality, significance, relevance to readership | - Does not go deep into methodology (that's Reviewer 1's job) | - Sets the review tone | |-> [methodology_reviewer_agent] -> Methodology Review Report | - Research design rigor, sampling strategy, data collection | - Analysis method selection, statistical validity, effect sizes | - Reproducibility, data transparency | |-> [domain_reviewer_agent] -------> Domain Review Report | - Literature review completeness, theoretical framework appropriateness | - Academic argument accuracy, incremental contribution to the field | - Missing key references | |-> [perspective_reviewer_agent] --> Perspective Review Report | - Cross-disciplinary connections and borrowing opportunities | - Practical applications and policy implications | - Broader social or ethical implications | +-> [devils_advocate_reviewer_agent] --> Devil's Advocate Report - Core argument challenges (strongest counter-arguments) - Cherry-picking detection - Confirmation bias detection - Logic chain validation - Overgeneralization detection - Alternative paths analysis - Stakeholder blind spots - "So what?" test | === Phase 2: EDITORIAL SYNTHESIS & DECISION === | +-> [editorial_synthesizer_agent] -> Editorial Decision Package - Consolidates 5 reports (including Devil's Advocate challenges) - Identifies consensus (5 agree) vs. disagreement (divergent opinions) - Arbitration and argumentation for disputed issues - Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues are specially flagged in the Editorial Decision - Editorial Decision Letter - Revision Roadmap (prioritized, can be directly input to academic-paper revision mode) | === Phase 2.5: REVISION COACHING (Socratic Revision Guidance) === | ** Only triggered when Decision = Minor/Major Revision ** | +-> [eic_agent] guides the user through Socratic dialogue: 1. Overall positioning — "After reading the review comments, what surprised you the most?" 2. Core issue focus — Guides user to understand consensus issues 3. Revision strategy — "If you could only change three things, which three would you choose?" 4. Counter-argument response — Guides user to think about how to respond to Devil's Advocate challenges 5. Implementation planning — Helps prioritize revisions | +-> After dialogue ends, produces: - User's self-formulated revision strategy - Reprioritized Revision Roadmap | ** User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance ** ``` ### Checkpoint Rules - **After Phase 0 completes**: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities - ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other. - ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1. - ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: If the Devil's Advocate finds CRITICAL issues, the Editorial Decision cannot be Accept. - **Phase 2.5**: Revision Coaching only triggers when Decision is not Accept; user can choose to skip - ⚠️ **IRON RULE — READ-ONLY CONSTRAINT**: Reviewers MUST NOT modify the submitted manuscript. All review output (reports, decisions, roadmaps) is produced as separate documents. The reviewer examines the paper — it never rewrites it. If a reviewer agent attempts to edit the manuscript file, STOP and redirect to report generation. ## Operational Modes (6 Modes) Mode Trigger Agents Output `full` Default / "full review" All 7 agents 5 review reports + Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap **`re-review`** **Pipeline Stage 3' / "verification review"** **field_analyst + eic + editorial_synthesizer** **Revision response checklist + residual issues + new Decision** `quick` "quick review" field_analyst + eic EIC quick assessment + key issues list (15-minute version) `methodology-focus` "check methodology" field_analyst + eic + methodology_reviewer In-depth methodology review report (panel 2 under v3.6.2 sprint contract: EIC + methodology) `guided` "guide me" All + Socratic dialogue Socratic issue-by-issue guided review **`calibration`** (v3.2) **"calibrate reviewer" / "measure reviewer accuracy"** **All 7 agents, 5x per gold paper, cross-model default-on** **Calibration Report: FNR/FPR/balanced accuracy/AUC + per-dimension calibration error + session-scoped confidence disclosure** ### Mode Selection Logic ``` "Review this paper" -> full "Give me a quick look at this paper" -> quick "Help me check the methodology" -> methodology-focus "Does this paper have methodology issues"-> methodology-focus "Guide me to improve this paper" -> guided "Walk me through the issues in my paper" -> guided "Verification review" / "Check revisions"-> re-review "How accurate is your review scoring?" -> calibration "Calibrate against these 10 papers" -> calibration ``` ## Re-Review Mode (Verification Review) Dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3' — verifies whether revisions address first-round review comments. Uses R&R Traceability Matrix (Schema 11) with Author's Claim + Verified? columns. **Input**: Original Revision Roadmap + Revised manuscript + Response to Reviewers (optional) **Output**: Verification Review Report with traceability matrix + new issues + Decision See `references/re_review_mode_protocol.md` for full verification logic, output format template, and Socratic guidance details. ## Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review) Helps authors understand problems themselves through progressive revelation. EIC opens with strengths, then gradually introduces deeper issues from each reviewer perspective. See `references/guided_mode_protocol.md` for dialogue flow, rules, and progressive revelation sequence. ## Calibration Mode (v3.2) Opt-in mode that measures this reviewer's FNR / FPR / balanced accuracy against a user-supplied gold set (5-20 papers with known outcomes). Runs `full` 5x per paper with fresh context, cross-model default-on. Produces a Calibration Report attached as a confidence disclosure to subsequent reviews in the session. See `references/calibration_mode_protocol.md` for full spec: intake rules, ensembling methodology, output format, and failure cases this mode does not fix. ## Review Output Format Each reviewer's report structure is detailed in `templates/peer_review_report_template.md`. ### Devil's Advocate Report Structure (Special Format) The Devil's Advocate uses a dedicated format, not the standard reviewer template: - **Strongest Counter-Argument** (200-300 words) - **Issue List** (categorized as CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR, with dimension and location) - **Ignored Alternative Explanations/Paths** - **Missing Stakeholder Perspectives** - **Observations (Non-Defects)** ## Editorial Decision Format The Editorial Decision Letter structure is detailed in `templates/editorial_decision_template.md`. ## Integration ### Upstream/Downstream Relationships ``` deep-research --> academic-paper --> [integrity check] --> academic-paper-reviewer --> academic-paper (revision) --> academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) --> [final integrity] --> finalize (research) (writing) (integrity audit) (review) (revision) (verification review) (final verification) (finalization) ``` ### Specific Integration Methods Integration Direction Description **Upstream: academic-paper -> reviewer** Receives the complete paper output from `academic-paper` full mode, directly enters Phase 0 **Upstream: integrity check -> reviewer** In the Pipeline, the paper must pass integrity check before entering reviewer **Downstream: reviewer -> academic-paper** The Revision Roadmap format can be directly used as reviewer feedback input for `academic-paper` revision mode **Downstream: reviewer (re-review) -> integrity** After re-review completes, proceeds to final integrity verification ### Pipeline Usage Example See `references/integration_guide.md` for a complete 9-step pipeline usage example. ## Agent File References Agent Definition File field_analyst_agent `agents/field_analyst_agent.md` eic_agent `agents/eic_agent.md` methodology_reviewer_agent `agents/methodology_reviewer_agent.md` domain_reviewer_agent `agents/domain_reviewer_agent.md` perspective_reviewer_agent `agents/perspective_reviewer_agent.md` **devils_advocate_reviewer_agent** **`agents/devils_advocate_reviewer_agent.md`** editorial_synthesizer_agent `agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md` ## Reference Files Reference Purpose Used By `references/review_criteria_framework.md` Structured review criteria framework (differentiated by paper type) all reviewers `references/top_journals_by_field.md` Top journal lists for major academic fields (EIC role calibration) field_analyst, eic `references/editorial_decision_standards.md` Accept/Minor/Major/Reject criteria and decision matrix eic, editorial_synthesizer `references/statistical_reporting_standards.md` Statistical reporting standards + APA 7.0 format quick reference + red flag list methodology_reviewer `references/quality_rubrics.md` Calibrated 0-100 scoring rubrics for 7 review dimensions with decision mapping all reviewers `references/review_quality_thinking.md` Cognitive framework for review quality: three lenses (internal validity, external validity, contribution), common reviewer traps, calibration questions all reviewers `references/re_review_mode_protocol.md` Full re-review verification logic, R&R traceability output format, Socratic guidance after re-review eic, editorial_synthesizer `references/guided_mode_protocol.md` Guided mode dialogue flow, progressive revelation sequence, dialogue rules all reviewers `references/calibration_mode_protocol.md` Calibration mode: FNR/FPR/balanced accuracy measurement against user-supplied gold set, 5x ensembling, session-scoped confidence disclosure (v3.2) all reviewers `references/integration_guide.md` Complete 9-step pipeline usage example — `references/changelog.md` Full version history — ## Templates Template Purpose `templates/peer_review_report_template.md` Review report template used by each reviewer `templates/editorial_decision_template.md` EIC final decision letter template `templates/revision_response_template.md` Revision response template for authors (R->A->C format) ## Examples Example Demonstrates `examples/hei_paper_review_example.md` Full review example: "Impact of Declining Birth Rates on Management Strategies of Taiwan's Private Universities" `examples/interdisciplinary_review_example.md` Cross-disciplinary review example: "Using Machine Learning to Predict University Closure Risk in Taiwan" ## Anti-Patterns Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes, especially during long conversations: # Anti-Pattern Why It Fails Correct Behavior 1 **Fabricating review comments** Synthesizer invents critique not in any reviewer report Every synthesis point must trace to a specific Phase 1 reviewer report 2 **Duplicate criticisms across reviewers** R1/R2/R3 raise identical points = fake diversity Each reviewer has a distinct perspective; overlapping topics get different angles 3 **Ignoring Devil's Advocate CRITICAL findings** Editorial Decision says Accept despite DA flagging critical issues If DA finds CRITICAL → Decision cannot be Accept (Checkpoint Rule #4) 4 **Rubber-stamp re-review** Re-review says "all addressed" without verification Each concern must be independently verified against the revised manuscript 5 **Sycophantic score inflation** Giving 8/10 to mediocre work to avoid conflict Scores must be evidence-based; a paper with methodology gaps cannot score >6 on rigor 6 **Editing the manuscript** Reviewer "helpfully" fixes the paper directly READ-ONLY: produce reports, never modify the paper (Checkpoint Rule #6) 7 **Generic feedback** "The methodology could be stronger" without specifics Every criticism must include: what's wrong, where it is, and a proposed fix ## Quality Standards Dimension Requirement Perspective differentiation Each reviewer's review must come from a different angle; no duplicate criticisms Evidence-based EIC's decision must be based on specific reviewer comments; no fabrication Specificity Reviews must cite specific passages, data, or page numbers from the paper; no vague comments Balance Strengths and Weaknesses must be balanced; cannot only criticize without affirming Professional tone Review tone must be professional and constructive; avoid personal attacks or demeaning language Actionability Each weakness must include specific improvement suggestions Format consistency All reports must follow the template structure; no freestyle **Devil's Advocate completeness** **Devil's Advocate must produce the strongest counter-argument; cannot be omitted** **CRITICAL threshold** **⚠️ IRON RULE: Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues cannot be ignored by the Editorial Decision** ## Output Language Follows the paper's language. Academic terms remain in English. User can override (e.g., "review this Chinese paper in English"). ## Related Skills Skill Relationship `academic-paper` Upstream (provides paper) + Downstream (receives revision roadmap) `deep-research` Upstream (provides research foundation) `tw-hei-intelligence` Auxiliary (verifies higher education data accuracy) `academic-pipeline` Orchestrated by (Stage 3 + Stage 3') ## v3.6.2 Sprint Contract Hard Gate - **Reviewer hard gate.** All reviewer modes that ship with contracts (`reviewer_full`, `reviewer_methodology_focus`) now run two-call Phase 1 (paper-content-blind) + Phase 2 (paper-visible) orchestration. See `references/sprint_contract_protocol.md`. - **Schema 13 sprint contract.** Template-driven acceptance criteria with `panel_size`, `acceptance_dimensions`, `failure_conditions` (with `severity` precedence + `cross_reviewer_quantifier` panel-relative thresholds), `measurement_procedure`, optional `override_ladder`, bounded `agent_amendments`. Validator: `scripts/check_sprint_contract.py`. Schema: `shared/sprint_contract.schema.json`. - **Synthesizer three-step mechanical protocol.** Build cross-reviewer matrix → evaluate each failure_condition with panel-relative quantifier + expression vocabulary → resolve precedence by severity. Forbidden operations explicit in `agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md`. - **methodology_focus reduced panel.** `reviewer_methodology_focus` mode runs a 2-reviewer panel (EIC + methodology only) instead of the default 5. - **Templates:** `shared/contracts/reviewer/full.json` (panel 5) and `shared/contracts/reviewer/methodology_focus.json` (panel 2). Reserved modes (`reviewer_re_review`, `reviewer_calibration`, `reviewer_guided`) keep pre-v3.6.2 behaviour until follow-up patch templates land. ## Version Info Item Content Skill Version 1.9.0 Last Updated 2026-04-23 Maintainer Cheng-I Wu Dependent Skills academic-paper v1.0+ (upstream/downstream integration) Role Multi-perspective academic paper review simulator ## Changelog See `references/changelog.md` for full version history. Weekly Installs680Repository[imbad0202/acade…h-skills](https://github.com/imbad0202/academic-research-skills)GitHub Stars4.0KFirst SeenTodaySecurity Audits[Gen Agent Trust HubPass](/imbad0202/academic-research-skills/academic-paper-reviewer/security/agent-trust-hub)[SocketPass](/imbad0202/academic-research-skills/academic-paper-reviewer/security/socket)[SnykPass](/imbad0202/academic-research-skills/academic-paper-reviewer/security/snyk) --- *Source: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/daily-academic-paper-reviewer* *Markdown mirror: https://skills.yangsir.net/api/skill/daily-academic-paper-reviewer/markdown*