peer-review

# Peer Review Skill ## Description Conduct thorough academic peer reviews with structured, constructive feedback. ## Tools Used - `load_pdf` - Load PDF papers in the workspace viewer (auto-switches to PDF reader) - `arxiv_to_prompt` - Convert arXiv papers to readable text for analysis - `update_notes` - Write review reports to the Notes editor ## Capabilities ### Paper Analysis - Extract and summarize main contributions - Identify methodology and approach - Evaluate experimental design - Assess writing quality ### Comparative Analysis - Find related prior work - Identify novelty claims - Check citation completeness - Verify originality ### Feedback Generation - Structured review reports - Specific, actionable comments - Line-by-line annotations - Summary recommendations ## Review Process ### Phase 1: Initial Read 1. Read abstract and introduction 2. Understand claimed contributions 3. Skim methodology and results 4. Form initial impression ### Phase 2: Detailed Analysis 1. Carefully read methodology 2. Evaluate experimental design 3. Check result validity 4. Assess reproducibility ### Phase 3: Comparative Check 1. Search for related work 2. Verify novelty claims 3. Check citation coverage 4. Identify missing references ### Phase 4: Report Writing 1. Summarize paper 2. List strengths 3. Detail weaknesses 4. Provide recommendations ## Feedback Templates ### Major Issue ``` [MAJOR] Section X, Page Y Issue: [Clear description] Impact: [Why this matters] Suggestion: [How to address] ``` ### Minor Issue ``` [MINOR] Section X Observation: [Description] Suggestion: [Improvement] ``` ### Question ``` [QUESTION] Section X The authors claim [X]. Could you clarify: - [Specific question] - [Related concern] ``` ## Review Report Structure ```markdown # Paper Review: [Title] ## Summary [2-3 sentence overview] ## Strengths 1. [Strength with explanation] 2. [Strength with explanation] ## Weaknesses ### Major Issues 1. [Issue with suggestion] ### Minor Issues 1. [Issue with suggestion] ## Questions for Authors 1. [Question] ## Detailed Comments [Section-by-section feedback] ## Recommendation [ ] Accept [ ] Minor Revision [ ] Major Revision [ ] Reject Confidence: [1-5] ``` ## Tool Examples ### Load and read an arXiv paper for review ``` arxiv_to_prompt arxiv_id="2303.08774" ``` ### Load a PDF submission ``` load_pdf source="/workspace/papers/submission.pdf" ``` ### Write the review report ``` update_notes content="<h1>Paper Review: [Title]</h1><h2>Summary</h2><p>...</p><h2>Strengths</h2><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Weaknesses</h2><h3>Major Issues</h3><ol><li>...</li></ol><h2>Recommendation</h2><p>Minor Revision — Confidence: 4/5</p>" ``` ## Best Practices 1. **Be Constructive**: Focus on improvement, not criticism 2. **Be Specific**: Point to exact locations and issues 3. **Be Fair**: Acknowledge strengths before weaknesses 4. **Verify completeness**: Before writing the final report, confirm you have reviewed all major sections and identified at least 3 strengths