peer-review

name	peer-review
description	Conduct structured manuscript reviews with section-by-section checklists and constructive feedback. Use when reviewing papers before submission, providing feedback to colleagues, or preparing reviewer responses.

Peer Review

Structured framework for reviewing academic manuscripts.

When to Use

• Reviewing own paper before submission
• Providing feedback to colleagues
• Serving as conference/journal reviewer
• Preparing author response to reviews
• Self-assessment of draft quality

Review Framework

Overall Assessment First

Before detailed review, form initial impressions:

1. Contribution: What is the main contribution?
2. Significance: How important is this for the field?
3. Novelty: What is new compared to prior work?
4. Soundness: Are the claims supported by evidence?
5. Clarity: Is the paper well-written?

Section-by-Section Review

Title and Abstract

Criterion	Question	Rating
Clarity	Does title clearly convey the contribution?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Accuracy	Does title accurately reflect content?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Self-contained	Can abstract be understood alone?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Complete	Does abstract cover problem, method, results?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Concise	Is abstract appropriately brief (150-250 words)?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work

Introduction

Criterion	Question	Rating
Motivation	Is the problem motivation clear and compelling?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Gap	Is the research gap clearly identified?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Contributions	Are contributions clearly stated?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Scope	Is the scope appropriate?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Organization	Is paper organization previewed?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work

Related Work

Criterion	Question	Rating
Coverage	Are relevant papers cited?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Organization	Is related work logically organized?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Positioning	Is this work positioned vs. prior work?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Fairness	Is prior work fairly characterized?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Recency	Are recent papers included?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work

Method

Criterion	Question	Rating
Clarity	Is the method clearly explained?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Reproducibility	Could someone reproduce this?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Justification	Are design choices justified?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Completeness	Are all components described?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Formalism	Is notation clear and consistent?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work

Experiments

Criterion	Question	Rating
Setup	Is experimental setup complete?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Baselines	Are baselines appropriate and fair?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Datasets	Are datasets appropriate?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Metrics	Are metrics appropriate and justified?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Significance	Is statistical significance reported?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Analysis	Is there analysis beyond raw numbers?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Ablations	Are ablation studies included?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work

Discussion and Conclusion

Criterion	Question	Rating
Limitations	Are limitations honestly discussed?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Implications	Are broader implications considered?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Future work	Is future work mentioned?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Summary	Does conclusion summarize key findings?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work

Presentation

Criterion	Question	Rating
Writing	Is the writing clear and grammatical?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Figures	Are figures clear and informative?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Tables	Are tables well-formatted?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Captions	Are captions self-contained?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work
Length	Is paper appropriate length?	[ ] Pass [ ] Needs work

Review Template

Summary

[2-3 sentences summarizing the paper's contribution]

Strengths

• [Strength 1]
• [Strength 2]
• [Strength 3]

Weaknesses

• [Weakness 1]
• [Weakness 2]
• [Weakness 3]

Detailed Comments

Major Issues

[Issues that must be addressed for acceptance]

1. [Issue title]
   • Location: [Section/page]
   • Problem: [Description]
   • Suggestion: [How to address]

Minor Issues

[Issues that would improve the paper but aren't critical]

1. [Issue and suggestion]
2. [Issue and suggestion]

Questions for Authors

1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]

Recommendation

[ ] Accept [ ] Minor revisions [ ] Major revisions [ ] Reject

Confidence

[ ] High - I am an expert in this area [ ] Medium - I am familiar with this area [ ] Low - This is outside my expertise

Constructive Feedback Principles

Do

• Be specific about problems
• Suggest solutions when possible
• Acknowledge strengths
• Separate major from minor issues
• Explain reasoning
• Be professional and respectful

Don't

• Be vague ("this is unclear")
• Be dismissive
• Focus only on negatives
• Request unreasonable changes
• Let personal preferences bias review
• Be unprofessional

Phrasing Guide

Instead of...	Try...
"This is wrong"	"I believe this may be incorrect because..."
"Poorly written"	"The writing could be clearer in section X"
"Missing citations"	"Consider citing [specific area/papers]"
"Not novel"	"The novelty over [prior work] isn't clear"
"Weak experiments"	"The experimental evaluation could be strengthened by..."

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing review:

• Summary accurately reflects paper
• All major issues identified
• Issues are specific and actionable
• Suggestions for improvement provided
• Strengths acknowledged
• Tone is constructive and professional
• Recommendation matches the review content
• No confidential information disclosed

References

See references/ folder for:

• review_checklist.md: Detailed checklist by paper type