Skills
skills/imbad0202/academic-research-skills/academic-paper-reviewer

academic-paper-reviewer

SKILL.md

Academic Paper Reviewer v1.4 — 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:

  1. Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer — specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical fallacies, and identifies the strongest counter-arguments
  2. Added re-review mode — verification review, focused on checking whether revisions address the review comments
  3. Expanded review team from 4 to 5 members

Quick Start

Simplest command:

Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]

Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]

Output:

  1. Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type
  2. Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers
  3. 5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective)
  4. 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

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
Need comprehensive review (first submission) full
Checking if revisions addressed comments re-review
Quick quality assessment (15 min) quick
Focus only on methods/statistics methodology-focus
Want to learn by doing (guided review) guided

Not sure? Use full for pre-submission review, re-review for post-revision verification.

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

  1. After Phase 0 completes: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities
  2. Phase 1: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other
  3. Phase 2: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1
  4. Devil's Advocate special handling: If the Devil's Advocate finds CRITICAL issues, the Editorial Decision cannot be Accept
  5. Phase 2.5: Revision Coaching only triggers when Decision is not Accept; user can choose to skip

Operational Modes (5 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 + methodology_reviewer In-depth methodology review report
guided "guide me" All + Socratic dialogue Socratic issue-by-issue guided review

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

Re-Review Mode (Added in v1.1 — Verification Review)

Re-review mode is the dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3', designed to verify whether revisions address the first-round review comments.

How It Works

Input:
1. Original Revision Roadmap (Stage 3 output)
2. Revised manuscript
3. Response to Reviewers (optional)

Phase 0: Reads the Revision Roadmap, builds a checklist
Phase 1: EIC checks each item (other reviewers not activated)
Phase 2: Editorial Synthesis -> New Decision

Verification Logic

For each item in the Revision Roadmap:

Priority 1 (Required):
  -> Check each item for corresponding changes in the revised manuscript
  -> Assess revision quality (FULLY_ADDRESSED / PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED / NOT_ADDRESSED / MADE_WORSE)
  -> All Priority 1 items must be FULLY_ADDRESSED for Accept

Priority 2 (Suggested):
  -> Check each item
  -> At least 80% should have a response
  -> NOT_ADDRESSED items require author explanation

Priority 3 (Nice to Fix):
  -> Check but does not affect Decision

New Issue Detection

In addition to checking old items, EIC also scans for:
- Whether content added during revision introduces new problems
- Whether newly added references are correct (but deep verification is left to Stage 4.5 integrity check)
- Whether revisions cause inconsistencies

Socratic Guidance After Re-Review

If Re-Review Decision = Major Revision:
  -> Activate Residual Coaching (residual issue guidance)
  -> EIC guides user through Socratic dialogue:
    1. Gap analysis — "How many issues did the first round of revisions resolve? Why are the remaining ones hard to address?"
    2. Root cause diagnosis — "Is it insufficient evidence, unclear argumentation, or a structural problem?"
    3. Trade-off decisions — "Which ones can be marked as research limitations?"
    4. Action plan — Plan revision approach for each residual issue
  -> Maximum 5 rounds of dialogue
  -> User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance

Re-Review Output Format

# Verification Review Report

## Decision
[Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision]

## Revision Response Checklist

### Priority 1 — Required Revisions

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status | Revision Location | Quality Assessment |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| R1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED | Section X.X | Adequately addressed; newly added content effectively resolves the issue |
| R2 | [Original text] | PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED | Section Y.Y | Partially addressed, but still missing [specific gap] |

### Priority 2 — Suggested Revisions

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status | Notes |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|-------|
| S1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED | -- |
| S2 | [Original text] | NOT_ADDRESSED | Author explanation: [reason] |

### Priority 3 — Nice to Fix

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|
| N1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED |

## New Issues (Discovered During Revision)

| # | Type | Location | Description |
|---|------|----------|-------------|
| NEW-1 | [Type] | Section X.X | [Description] |

## Decision Rationale
[Rationale based on the checklist]

## Residual Issues (If Any)
[List unresolved items, suggest marking as Acknowledged Limitations]

Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review)

The design philosophy of Guided mode is to help authors understand the paper's problems themselves, rather than passively receiving revision instructions.

How It Works

Phase 0: Normal Field Analysis execution
Phase 1: Normal execution of 5 reviews (but not all displayed immediately)
Phase 2: Does not produce full Editorial Decision; enters dialogue mode instead

Dialogue Flow

  1. EIC opens: First points out 1-2 core strengths of the paper (building confidence), then raises the most critical structural issue
  2. Wait for author response: Author thinks, responds, or asks questions
  3. Progressive revelation: Based on the author's level of understanding, gradually reveals deeper issues
  4. Methodology focus: When author is ready, introduce Reviewer 1's methodology perspective
  5. Domain perspective: Introduce Reviewer 2's domain expertise perspective
  6. Cross-disciplinary challenge: Introduce Reviewer 3's unique perspective
  7. Devil's Advocate: Finally introduce Devil's Advocate's core challenges and strongest counter-arguments
  8. Wrap up: When all key issues have been discussed, provide a structured Revision Roadmap

Dialogue Rules

  • Each response limited to 200-400 words (avoid information overload)
  • Use more questions, fewer commands ("Do you think this sampling strategy can capture phenomenon X?" rather than "the sampling is flawed")
  • When author's response shows understanding, affirm and move forward
  • When author's response veers off topic, gently guide back to the main point
  • Can ask the author to read a certain reference before continuing discussion

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

User: I want to write a paper about AI in higher education quality assurance, from research to submission

Step 1: deep-research -> Research report
Step 2: academic-paper -> Paper first draft
Step 3: integrity check -> 100% verification of references/data
Step 4: academic-paper-reviewer (full) -> 5 review reports + Revision Roadmap
Step 5: academic-paper (revision) -> Revised manuscript
Step 6: academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) -> Verification review
Step 7: (if needed) academic-paper (revision) -> Second revised manuscript
Step 8: integrity check (final) -> Final 100% verification
Step 9: academic-paper (format-convert) -> Final paper

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

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"

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 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')

Version Info

Item Content
Skill Version 1.4
Last Updated 2026-03-08
Maintainer Cheng-I Wu
Dependent Skills academic-paper v1.0+ (upstream/downstream integration)
Role Multi-perspective academic paper review simulator

Changelog

Version Date Changes
1.4 2026-03-08 Quality rubrics reference (0-100 scoring with 5 descriptors per dimension, weighted aggregation formula, decision mapping); Quick Mode Selection Guide; Dimension Scores upgraded from optional 1-5 to required 0-100 with rubric descriptors
1.3 2025-03-05 DA vs R3 role boundaries with explicit responsibility tables; CRITICAL finding criteria with concrete examples; Consensus classification (CONSENSUS-4/3/SPLIT/DA-CRITICAL); Confidence Score weighting rules; Asian & Regional Journals reference (TSSCI + Asia-Pacific + OA options)
1.2 2026-03 Added statistical reporting standards reference; enhanced methodology_reviewer_agent with statistical reporting adequacy sub-step
1.1 2026-02 Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer (7th agent), added re-review mode, expanded review team from 4 to 5
1.0 2026-02 Initial version: 6 agents, 4 modes, 3-phase workflow
Weekly Installs
19
Repository
imbad0202/acade…h-skills
GitHub Stars
607
First Seen
7 days ago
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPass
SocketPass
SnykPass
Installed on
opencode19
codex18
gemini-cli17
cline17
github-copilot17
cursor17