reviewer

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

1. Confirm the journal type.
2. Read the manuscript: structure, claims, methods, results.
3. Apply the standards for the type (profiles below).
4. 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).