paper-reviewer

Name: paper-reviewer
Author: Boom5426

58installs28forks

How to install paper-reviewer?

boom5426/nature-paper-skills/paper-reviewer

$npx -y skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill paper-reviewer

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Use when acting as a journal or grant reviewer and writing formal reviewer-side evaluations focused on methodology, statistics, reporting standards, reproducibility, and constructive feedback.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review
2
3	## Overview
4
5	Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation.
6
7	## When to Use This Skill
8
9	This skill should be used when:
10	- Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals
11	- Evaluating grant proposals and research applications
12	- Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor
13	- Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards
14	- Evaluating reproducibility and data availability
15	- Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)
16	- Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing
17
18	## Visual Enhancement with Scientific Figures
19
20	When creating documents with this skill, consider adding diagrams when they clarify a workflow, architecture, or evaluation framework.
21
22	If the document does not already contain suitable figures:
23	- Use this repository's `nature-figure` skill (its optional OpenRouter AI-schematic route) to generate publication-style diagrams, if it is installed. If it is not, describe the figure in text instead.
24	- Describe the desired figure in natural language and specify academic style constraints.
25	- Iterate prompts until the figure is clear, readable, and suitable for review materials.
26
27	Example command (via the `nature-figure` skill's OpenRouter route):
28	```bash
29	export OPENROUTER_API_KEY="sk-or-..."
30	python ~/.codex/skills/nature-figure/scripts/generate_openrouter_schematic.py \
31	--title "Peer review workflow" \
32	--panel-map "left: submission; center: assessment stages; right: recommendation" \
33	--outdir figures --basename review-workflow --resolution 2K
34	```
35
36	If you are in Claude Code, replace `~/.codex/skills` with `~/.claude/skills`. See `nature-figure`'s `references/openrouter-image-generation.md` for full options.
37
38	When to add figures:
39	- Peer review workflow diagrams
40	- Evaluation criteria decision trees
41	- Review process flowcharts
42	- Methodology assessment frameworks
43	- Quality assessment visualizations
44	- Reporting guidelines compliance diagrams
45	- Any complex concept that benefits from visualization
46
47	For detailed guidance on creating figures, refer to the `nature-figure` skill if it is installed.
48
49	---
50
51	## Peer Review Workflow
52
53	Conduct peer review systematically through the following stages, adapting depth and focus based on the manuscript type and discipline.
54
55	### Stage 1: Initial Assessment
56
57	Begin with a high-level evaluation to determine the manuscript's scope, novelty, and overall quality.
58
59	Key Questions:
60	- What is the central research question or hypothesis?
61	- What are the main findings and conclusions?
62	- Is the work scientifically sound and significant?
63	- Is the work appropriate for the intended venue?
64	- Are there any immediate major flaws that would preclude publication?
65
66	Output: Brief summary (2-3 sentences) capturing the manuscript's essence and initial impression.
67
68	### Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review
69
70	Conduct a thorough evaluation of each manuscript section, documenting specific concerns and strengths.
71
72	#### Abstract and Title
73	- Accuracy: Does the abstract accurately reflect the study's content and conclusions?
74	- Clarity: Is the title specific, accurate, and informative?
75	- Completeness: Are key findings and methods summarized appropriately?
76	- Accessibility: Is the abstract comprehensible to a broad scientific audience?
77
78	#### Introduction
79	- Context: Is the background information adequate and current?
80	- Rationale: Is the research question clearly motivated and justified?
81	- Novelty: Is the work's originality and significance clearly articulated?
82	- Literature: Are relevant prior studies appropriately cited?
83	- Objectives: Are research aims/hypotheses clearly stated?
84
85	#### Methods
86	- Reproducibility: Can another researcher replicate the study from the description provided?
87	- Rigor: Are the methods appropriate for addressing the research questions?
88	- Detail: Are protocols, reagents, equipment, and parameters sufficiently described?
89	- Ethics: Are ethical approvals, consent, and data handling properly documented?
90	- Statistics: Are statistical methods appropriate, clearly described, and justified?
91	- Validation: Are controls, replicates, and validation approaches adequate?
92
93	Critical elements to verify:
94	- Sample sizes and power calculations
95	- Randomization and blinding procedures
96	- Inclusion/exclusion criteria
97	- Data collection protocols
98	- Computational methods and software versions
99	- Statistical tests and correction for multiple comparisons
100
101	#### Results
102	- **

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

paper-reviewer

58installs28forks

View on GitHub

How to install paper-reviewer?

boom5426/nature-paper-skills/paper-reviewer

$npx -y skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill paper-reviewer

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Use when acting as a journal or grant reviewer and writing formal reviewer-side evaluations focused on methodology, statistics, reporting standards, reproducibility, and constructive feedback.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review
2
3	## Overview
4
5	Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation.
6
7	## When to Use This Skill
8
9	This skill should be used when:
10	- Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals
11	- Evaluating grant proposals and research applications
12	- Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor
13	- Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards
14	- Evaluating reproducibility and data availability
15	- Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA)
16	- Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing
17
18	## Visual Enhancement with Scientific Figures
19
20	When creating documents with this skill, consider adding diagrams when they clarify a workflow, architecture, or evaluation framework.
21
22	If the document does not already contain suitable figures:
23	- Use this repository's `nature-figure` skill (its optional OpenRouter AI-schematic route) to generate publication-style diagrams, if it is installed. If it is not, describe the figure in text instead.
24	- Describe the desired figure in natural language and specify academic style constraints.
25	- Iterate prompts until the figure is clear, readable, and suitable for review materials.
26
27	Example command (via the `nature-figure` skill's OpenRouter route):
28	```bash
29	export OPENROUTER_API_KEY="sk-or-..."
30	python ~/.codex/skills/nature-figure/scripts/generate_openrouter_schematic.py \
31	--title "Peer review workflow" \
32	--panel-map "left: submission; center: assessment stages; right: recommendation" \
33	--outdir figures --basename review-workflow --resolution 2K
34	```
35
36	If you are in Claude Code, replace `~/.codex/skills` with `~/.claude/skills`. See `nature-figure`'s `references/openrouter-image-generation.md` for full options.
37
38	When to add figures:
39	- Peer review workflow diagrams
40	- Evaluation criteria decision trees
41	- Review process flowcharts
42	- Methodology assessment frameworks
43	- Quality assessment visualizations
44	- Reporting guidelines compliance diagrams
45	- Any complex concept that benefits from visualization
46
47	For detailed guidance on creating figures, refer to the `nature-figure` skill if it is installed.
48
49	---
50
51	## Peer Review Workflow
52
53	Conduct peer review systematically through the following stages, adapting depth and focus based on the manuscript type and discipline.
54
55	### Stage 1: Initial Assessment
56
57	Begin with a high-level evaluation to determine the manuscript's scope, novelty, and overall quality.
58
59	Key Questions:
60	- What is the central research question or hypothesis?
61	- What are the main findings and conclusions?
62	- Is the work scientifically sound and significant?
63	- Is the work appropriate for the intended venue?
64	- Are there any immediate major flaws that would preclude publication?
65
66	Output: Brief summary (2-3 sentences) capturing the manuscript's essence and initial impression.
67
68	### Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review
69
70	Conduct a thorough evaluation of each manuscript section, documenting specific concerns and strengths.
71
72	#### Abstract and Title
73	- Accuracy: Does the abstract accurately reflect the study's content and conclusions?
74	- Clarity: Is the title specific, accurate, and informative?
75	- Completeness: Are key findings and methods summarized appropriately?
76	- Accessibility: Is the abstract comprehensible to a broad scientific audience?
77
78	#### Introduction
79	- Context: Is the background information adequate and current?
80	- Rationale: Is the research question clearly motivated and justified?
81	- Novelty: Is the work's originality and significance clearly articulated?
82	- Literature: Are relevant prior studies appropriately cited?
83	- Objectives: Are research aims/hypotheses clearly stated?
84
85	#### Methods
86	- Reproducibility: Can another researcher replicate the study from the description provided?
87	- Rigor: Are the methods appropriate for addressing the research questions?
88	- Detail: Are protocols, reagents, equipment, and parameters sufficiently described?
89	- Ethics: Are ethical approvals, consent, and data handling properly documented?
90	- Statistics: Are statistical methods appropriate, clearly described, and justified?
91	- Validation: Are controls, replicates, and validation approaches adequate?
92
93	Critical elements to verify:
94	- Sample sizes and power calculations
95	- Randomization and blinding procedures
96	- Inclusion/exclusion criteria
97	- Data collection protocols
98	- Computational methods and software versions
99	- Statistical tests and correction for multiple comparisons
100
101	#### Results
102	- **

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type