| name | review-paper |
| description | Simulated peer review of the sewage-house-prices manuscript. Dispatches 2 independent referee reviews (parallel) and an editorial decision (sequential). Produces referee reports and accept/revise/reject recommendation. This skill should be used when asked to "review the paper", "get feedback", "simulate peer review", or "what would referees say". |
| argument-hint | [.tex file path, section number, or 'all'] |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Agent"] |
Review Paper
Simulate peer review of the "Sewage in Our Waters" manuscript by running two independent referee reviews and an editorial synthesis.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to .tex file, section number (e.g. 01), or all. Defaults to reviewing all sections in docs/overleaf/.
Project-Specific Context
Manuscript Location
- Main document:
docs/overleaf/_main.tex
- Sections:
docs/overleaf/01_introduction.tex through docs/overleaf/05_research_question.tex
- Appendices:
docs/overleaf/100_appendix_*.tex
- Bibliography:
docs/overleaf/refs.bib
Key Aspects for Referee Scrutiny
- Identification: Do hedonic, repeat sales, long diff, DiD, upstream/downstream, dry spill approaches yield consistent results?
- External validity: England-specific EDM data — how generalisable?
- Data quality: EDM monitoring started 2021 — short panel concerns
- Treatment measurement: Spill count vs hours, 12/24-hour counting methodology
- Spatial matching: 10km maximum radius — appropriate?
- Sorting: Do households sort based on sewage spill information?
Supporting Evidence
- Regression output:
output/tables/*.tex
- Figures:
output/figures/
- Analysis scripts:
scripts/R/09_analysis/
- Quarto book:
book/*.qmd
Workflow
Step 1: Context Gathering
- Read the manuscript sections from
docs/overleaf/
- Read
docs/overleaf/refs.bib for citation verification
- Scan
output/tables/ for available regression output
- Scan
output/figures/ for available figures
- Read relevant analysis scripts for methodology verification
Step 2: Referee 1 Review
Launch an Agent to conduct the first blind review:
Focus: Identification strategy and econometric rigour
Score across 5 dimensions:
- Contribution (25%): Novelty, importance, gap filled in hedonic pricing / environmental disamenity literature
- Identification (30%): Design validity, assumptions, threats across all 6 approaches
- Data (20%): EDM data quality, Land Registry coverage, spatial matching methodology
- Writing (15%): Clarity, structure, notation consistency
- Journal Fit (10%): Appropriate for environmental/urban economics journals
Produce: summary, detailed comments by section, recommendation (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject).
Step 3: Referee 2 Review
Launch an Agent (in parallel with Referee 1) for the second blind review:
Focus: External validity, robustness, and alternative explanations
Emphasis on:
- Are results robust across radii (250m-10km)?
- Can sorting explain the findings?
- Do results differ for sales vs rentals — and why?
- Is the dry spill identification convincing?
- How does the upstream/downstream analysis strengthen or weaken the story?
Same 5-dimension scoring, independent of Referee 1.
Step 4: Editorial Synthesis
After both referee reviews complete:
- Read both reports
- Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
- Weigh referee recommendations
- Specify which concerns are mandatory vs optional to address
- Make recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
Step 5: Present Results
# Peer Review Report: Sewage in Our Waters
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## Editorial Decision: [Accept / Minor / Major / Reject]
## Referee 1 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]
## Referee 2 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]
## Editor's Assessment
- **Referee agreement:** [Where they agree, where they disagree]
- **Mandatory revisions:** [List]
- **Optional improvements:** [List]
## Full Reports
- Referee 1: output/log/referee_1_report.md
- Referee 2: output/log/referee_2_report.md
- Editor: output/log/editorial_decision.md
Save all reports to output/log/.
Principles
- Independence. Referees do not see each other's reports. Run in parallel.
- Constructive criticism. The goal is to improve the paper, not tear it down.
- Specific feedback. Every concern must cite exact sections, equations, or tables.
- Calibrated severity. A working draft gets developmental feedback. A near-final manuscript gets referee-level scrutiny.
- Cross-reference against actual output. Verify numbers against
output/tables/.
- Editor synthesizes. The Editor resolves referee disagreements and prioritizes revisions.
