academic-paper-reviewer

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 —

...