| name | code-review-and-quality |
| description | Conducts multi-dimensional manuscript review. Use when evaluating draft quality across argumentation, clarity, evidence, structure, and academic style before submission. |
Manuscript Review and Quality
Overview
Multi-dimensional manuscript review with quality gates. Every draft section gets
reviewed before inclusion in the final paper. Review covers five axes:
argumentation, clarity, evidence, structure, and academic style.
The approval standard: A section is ready when it clearly advances the
paper's argument, is supported by evidence, and meets venue standards — even if
it could still be polished further. Perfect prose doesn't exist; the goal is
continuous improvement toward submission readiness.
When to Use
- After drafting any section of the paper
- Before assembling the final manuscript
- When revising based on peer review feedback
- After updating the literature review with new sources
- When verifying citation accuracy and completeness
When NOT to use: During initial brainstorming or topic exploration where
rough notes are expected.
The Five-Axis Review
1. Argumentation & Logic
Does the paper present a sound, well-reasoned argument?
- Is the research question clearly stated and motivated?
- Does the gap analysis justify why this work is needed?
- Are all claims logically connected to evidence?
- Are contributions in the introduction substantiated in the body?
- Are limitations and threats to validity honestly discussed?
- Does the conclusion follow from the results (no overclaiming)?
2. Clarity & Readability
Can another researcher understand this without the author explaining it?
- Are key terms defined on first use and consistent throughout?
- Are sentences concise (target ≤25 words average)?
- Is jargon minimized or clearly explained?
- Are acronyms defined at first use?
- Is signposting effective ("Building on this…", "In contrast…")?
- Do figures and tables have descriptive, self-contained captions?
3. Evidence & Citations
Is every claim backed by verifiable evidence?
- Does every factual assertion have a citation or reference to original data?
- Are all cited papers real and verifiable (no fabricated references)?
- Do cited results accurately reflect the source papers?
- Are there unsupported claims ("It is well-known…" without citation)?
- Are baselines and comparisons fair and well-justified?
- Is the literature review comprehensive for the field?
4. Structure & Flow
Does the paper follow a logical progression?
- Does it use the appropriate structure for its type (IMRaD, survey, position)?
- Do section lengths match their importance to the argument?
- Are transitions between sections smooth?
- Does each paragraph follow: topic sentence → evidence → analysis → transition?
- Are all figures, tables, and equations referenced in the text?
- Does the abstract faithfully summarize the paper?
5. Academic Style & Conventions
Does the writing meet academic publishing standards?
- Is the tone formal but accessible?
- Is active voice used where appropriate ("We propose…")?
- Are filler words removed ("very", "really", "basically", "quite")?
- Is tense consistent (present for established facts, past for experiments)?
- Does formatting match the target venue's requirements?
- Are citation formats correct (APA, IEEE, ACM as appropriate)?
Finding Categories
| Severity | Meaning | Action Required |
|---|
| Critical | Blocks submission | Logical fallacy, fabricated citation, missing key section |
| Important | Should fix | Weak argument, missing related work, unclear methodology |
| Suggestion | Nice to have | Better word choice, additional analysis, formatting polish |
Section-Specific Checks
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Methodology
Experiments & Results
Discussion & Conclusion
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|
| "The reviewer will understand what I mean" | If it's ambiguous to you, it's ambiguous to them. Be explicit. |
| "I'll add citations later" | Unsupported claims become habits. Cite as you write. |
| "The results speak for themselves" | Results need interpretation. Explain what they mean and why they matter. |
| "This limitation is obvious, no need to state it" | Reviewers respect transparency. Unstated limitations look like blind spots. |
| "It's just a first draft" | First drafts set the structure. Review early to avoid compounding problems. |
Red Flags
- Claims without citations
- Contributions listed in the intro but not demonstrated in the body
- Results reported without analysis or interpretation
- Missing or fabricated references
- Inconsistent terminology across sections
- Abstract that doesn't match the paper's actual content
- "We solve the problem" without precise scope qualification
Verification
After review is complete:
