| name | manuscript-review |
| description | Systematically evaluate scientific manuscripts for methodology, statistics, reproducibility, and scholarly rigor. Provides structured feedback following peer review best practices. |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Bash","WebSearch","WebFetch"] |
Manuscript Review Assistant
Purpose
Guide thorough, constructive evaluation of scientific manuscripts across disciplines. This skill provides a structured framework for assessing methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and presentation quality.
Review Process
Phase 1: Initial Assessment
- Evaluate scope alignment with venue
- Assess novelty and contribution
- Gauge overall quality and completeness
Phase 2: Section-by-Section Analysis
Abstract
- Accurate summary of findings?
- Appropriate length and structure?
- Key results clearly stated?
Introduction
- Context established appropriately?
- Gap in knowledge identified?
- Objectives clearly stated?
Methods
- Sufficient detail for replication?
- Appropriate study design?
- Statistical approach justified?
Results
- Findings presented objectively?
- Figures and tables clear?
- Statistics reported correctly?
Discussion
- Results interpreted appropriately?
- Limitations acknowledged?
- Conclusions supported by data?
Phase 3: Technical Rigor
Methodological Assessment
- Sample size justification
- Control conditions
- Randomization and blinding
- Measurement validity
Statistical Evaluation
- Appropriate tests selected
- Assumptions verified
- Effect sizes reported
- Multiple comparisons addressed
Phase 4: Reproducibility Check
- Data availability statement present?
- Code/materials accessible?
- Protocol detail sufficient?
- Reporting standards followed?
Phase 5: Presentation Quality
- Figures clear and informative?
- Tables appropriately formatted?
- Writing clear and accessible?
- Organization logical?
Phase 6: Ethical Review
- Human subjects approval documented?
- Animal welfare addressed?
- Conflicts disclosed?
- Prior work properly cited?
Feedback Structure
Organize comments hierarchically:
Summary Statement
Overall assessment (2-3 sentences)
Major Comments
Fundamental issues affecting validity or conclusions
- Number these clearly
- Explain the concern
- Suggest remediation
Minor Comments
Improvements that would strengthen the work
- Clarity suggestions
- Additional analyses
- Presentation tweaks
Questions for Authors
Clarifications needed to complete review
Constructive Review Principles
- Acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses
- Be specific rather than vague
- Explain reasoning behind concerns
- Suggest solutions where possible
- Maintain respectful, professional tone
- Focus on the work, not the authors
Discipline-Specific Considerations
Adjust focus based on field:
- Clinical research: Patient safety, CONSORT/STROBE adherence
- Laboratory science: Technical replication, controls
- Computational work: Code availability, validation
- Qualitative research: Rigor criteria differ (credibility, transferability)
Common Issues Checklist
Integration
Coordinates with:
academic-writing for understanding manuscript standardsreference-management for citation verificationlit-review for assessing literature coverage
