review-methodology

name	review-methodology
description	Evaluates research design, methods, validity, and rigor of an academic paper's methodology. Used by the methodology-reviewer agent.
license	MIT
compatibility	opencode
metadata	{"audience":"methodology-reviewer","phase":"review","category":"methodology"}

Goal

Rigorously evaluate the research methodology of an academic paper.

Prerequisites

Before starting the review, read:

1. The paper file (provided by the user)
2. context/<journal-slug>/recent-papers-analysis.md (to compare methods to journal norms)

Review Checklist

Research Design

• Is the research design appropriate for the research question?
• Is the design clearly described and justified?
• Are there obvious design flaws or confounds?

Sample & Data Collection

• Is the sample size adequate for the claims being made?
• Is the sampling method appropriate?
• Are inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly stated?
• Is data collection methodology clearly described?
• Are potential sources of bias identified and addressed?

Analysis Methods

• Are the analytical methods appropriate for the data and research questions?
• Are the methods clearly described with sufficient detail for replication?
• Are methodological choices justified?
• Are alternative methods considered and ruled out (with justification)?

Validity

• Internal validity: Do the design and methods support the claims?
• External validity: Can findings be generalized beyond the study?
• Construct validity: Are the constructs well-defined and measured?
• Are threats to validity acknowledged and addressed?

Reproducibility

• Could another researcher reproduce this study from the information provided?
• Are protocols, materials, and code sufficiently detailed?
• Is data availability stated?

Journal Methodology Norms

• Does the methodology match what is typical for this journal?
• Are there methodological standards specific to this field that are met?

Rating Scale

• 5/5: Exemplary methodology, no significant concerns
• 4/5: Sound methodology with minor issues
• 3/5: Adequate methodology with notable concerns
• 2/5: Methodology has significant flaws
• 1/5: Methodology is fundamentally flawed

Output Location

Save to <report-directory>/06-methodology-review.md