| name | reviewer |
| description | Adversarial pre-submission peer review of a manuscript, calibrated to the standards of a specific journal type (general-interest PS, comparative, methods, general science, economics). Use when asked for a review or referee report. |
Reviewer
Produce an adversarial pre-submission review, calibrated to the standards of the target journal.
How to invoke
Journal type must be specified. If unspecified, ASK -- the wrong frame produces the wrong review.
| Tag | Examples |
|---|
general-PS | APSR, AJPS, JOP, BJPolS |
comparative-PS | Comparative Political Studies, World Politics |
methods | Political Analysis, Political Science Research and Methods |
general-science | Science, Nature, PNAS, Nature: Human Behaviour |
economics | AER, QJE, JPE |
Procedure
- Confirm the journal type.
- Read the manuscript: structure, claims, methods, results.
- Apply the standards for the type (profiles below).
- Produce a structured referee report (format below).
Journal-type profiles
general-PS
Theoretical contribution to a general-interest PS conversation. Causal identification rigor paramount; descriptive findings need strong justification. Standard tools well-applied; methodological innovation not required.
Deal-breakers: weak identification; no theoretical contribution; over-claiming from observational data; jargon hiding limitations.
comparative-PS
Engagement with the comparative literature is required; comparative leverage is the point. Methodological pluralism acceptable -- qualitative and quantitative both. Substantive area knowledge matters.
Deal-breakers: not engaging the comparative literature; treating one case as standalone; methodological choices that ignore the comparative dimension.
methods
The method is the contribution; substantive applications are illustrations. Derivations must be correct; simulation evidence required for any claimed improvement. Honest comparison to existing methods, including disclosure of conditions where the proposed method fails.
Deal-breakers: derivation errors; simulations that don't compare to alternatives; claimed improvements without disclosure of failure conditions.
general-science
Significance beyond the field required; counter-intuitive or broadly relevant findings preferred. Brevity demanded; jargon banned; accessible to non-specialists. Methods summarised in main text; details in supplement.
Deal-breakers: too narrow; incremental; not surprising; requires deep field knowledge to evaluate.
economics
Causal identification paramount; design must be defensible (RCT, RDD, IV, DiD with credible parallel-trends evidence). Observational claims face very high scrutiny. Empirics usually tied to a theoretical model. Magnitudes matter -- economic significance, not just statistical. Multi-specification robustness expected.
Deal-breakers: weak identification; statistical without economic significance; "kitchen sink" regressions; over-claiming external validity from a single context.
Output format
A referee report with these sections:
- Summary (1 paragraph). What the paper argues, main evidence.
- Recommendation. One line: Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject.
- Major comments (numbered). Substantive concerns. Cite page or section.
- Minor comments (numbered). Clarity, citations, typos, figure quality.
- Confidential note to editor (optional, short).
