| name | academic-paper-reviewer |
| description | Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review. |
| metadata | {"version":"1.4","last_updated":"2026-03-08","status":"active","related_skills":["academic-paper","academic-pipeline"]} |
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:
- 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]
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
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
- After Phase 0 completes: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities
- Phase 1: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other
- Phase 2: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1
- Devil's Advocate special handling: 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
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
- EIC opens: First points out 1-2 core strengths of the paper (building confidence), then raises the most critical structural issue
- Wait for author response: Author thinks, responds, or asks questions
- Progressive revelation: Based on the author's level of understanding, gradually reveals deeper issues
- Methodology focus: When author is ready, introduce Reviewer 1's methodology perspective
- Domain perspective: Introduce Reviewer 2's domain expertise perspective
- Cross-disciplinary challenge: Introduce Reviewer 3's unique perspective
- Devil's Advocate: Finally introduce Devil's Advocate's core challenges and strongest counter-arguments
- 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
