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**: 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] ``` **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, 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 1. **After Phase 0 completes**: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities 2. ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other. 3. ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1. 4. ⚠️ **IRON RULE**: 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 6. ⚠️ **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 |