paper-self-review

name	paper-self-review
description	This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "self-review before submission", "check paper completeness", "score my paper", "validate paper structure", "check identification strategy", "pre-submission review", or "run quality check on paper". Provides systematic 0-100 scored review for economics and political science papers before advisor review or journal submission.
version	2.0.0

Paper Self-Review — Scored Quality Audit

Systematic 0-100 scored review for social science papers. Produces a structured report with blocking issues, warnings, and a submission readiness verdict.

Quality Thresholds

Score	Gate	Meaning
90+	Journal submission	Ready to submit
85+	Advisor/coauthor review	Ready to share
80+	Draft commit	Good enough to save
< 80	Not ready	Fix blocking issues first

---

Step 1: Locate and Read the Paper

Read the full paper (.tex, .pdf, or .qmd). For long papers, read in logical chunks:

• Abstract + Introduction
• Theory/Hypotheses (if present)
• Data + Empirical Strategy
• Results + Robustness
• Conclusion

---

Step 2: Score Across 8 Dimensions

Start at 100. Apply deductions for each issue found.

Dimension 1: Identification & Causal Credibility (max deduction: 40)

Issue	Deduction
Key identifying assumption not stated explicitly	-15
Main threat to validity not acknowledged	-10
No robustness checks / sensitivity analysis	-10
Pre-trends / placebo tests missing (for DID/RDD)	-8
Clustered SE not justified	-5
Multiple testing not addressed	-5

Dimension 2: Main Results (max deduction: 25)

Issue	Deduction
Primary estimate missing or wrong sign	-20
No economic magnitude interpretation	-8
Effect size not benchmarked to existing literature	-5
Significance without magnitude discussion	-5
Tables not self-contained (missing notes)	-5

Dimension 3: Introduction Quality (max deduction: 20)

Issue	Deduction
Research question not stated in first 2 paragraphs	-10
Contribution not differentiated from prior work	-8
Main finding with magnitude not in introduction	-8
Identification strategy not summarized	-5
No roadmap	-3

Dimension 4: Theory / Hypotheses (max deduction: 15, PolSci only)

Issue	Deduction
Hypotheses not numbered and explicit (APSR/JOP)	-10
Causal mechanism not specified	-8
Theory disconnected from empirics	-8

Dimension 5: Data & Measurement (max deduction: 15)

Issue	Deduction
Key variable operationalization unexplained	-8
Sample selection not justified	-5
Descriptive statistics missing	-5
Data source not cited with access info	-3

Dimension 6: Literature Positioning (max deduction: 15)

Issue	Deduction
Missing seminal paper in this literature	-10
Contribution not clearly differentiated	-8
Prior findings mischaracterized	-8
Broken citation (\cite{} undefined)	-5 per

Dimension 7: Writing Quality (max deduction: 10)

Issue	Deduction
AI writing patterns (hollow hedges, filler phrases)	-5
Abstract missing key result with magnitude	-5
Passive voice where active would be clearer	-2
Notation inconsistency within paper	-3

Dimension 8: Presentation (max deduction: 10)

Issue	Deduction
Figure axis labels missing	-3 per
Table lacks column headers or notes	-3 per
Compilation error (LaTeX)	-10
Overfull hbox > 10pt	-2

---

Step 3: Generate Referee Objections

Produce 3-5 specific questions a hostile referee at a top journal would raise:

• Attack the identification strategy directly
• Challenge economic/political significance of the magnitude
• Point to missing heterogeneity analysis
• Flag inconsistency between theory and empirics
• Identify gaps in the literature review

---

Step 4: Output Format

# Paper Self-Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Track:** [Economics / Political Science]
**Target journal:** [If known]

---

## Overall Score: [N]/100

**Submission Readiness:** [READY / REVISE / NOT READY]

---

## Score Breakdown

| Dimension | Deductions | Subtotal |
|-----------|-----------|---------|
| 1. Identification & Causality | -X | Y/100 |
| 2. Main Results | -X | Y/100 |
| 3. Introduction | -X | Y/100 |
| 4. Theory/Hypotheses | -X | Y/100 |
| 5. Data & Measurement | -X | Y/100 |
| 6. Literature | -X | Y/100 |
| 7. Writing Quality | -X | Y/100 |
| 8. Presentation | -X | Y/100 |
| **TOTAL** | | **[N]/100** |

---

## Blocking Issues (must fix before submission)

### B1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Which dimension]
- **Issue:** [Specific description with location]
- **Fix:** [Concrete action required]

[Repeat for all blocking issues]

---

## Warnings (should fix)

### W1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [Description]
- **Suggested fix:** [Action]

---

## Referee Objections

### RO1: [Objection]
**Why fatal:** [Why this could cause rejection]
**How to address:** [Response or additional analysis]

[Repeat for 3-5 objections]

---

## Strengths

1. [What works well]
2. [What works well]

---

## Summary

[2-3 sentences: overall assessment and priority actions]

---

Principles

• Score 0-100 strictly — no inflation
• Every critique must include a concrete fix
• Distinguish blocking (< 80 without fixing) from warnings
• Think like a hostile referee at a top-5 journal
• Save report to session log under ## Paper Review