peer-review

Name: peer-review
Author: LeonChaoX

698stars61forks

How to install peer-review?

leonchaox/qinyan-academic-skills/peer-review

$npx -y skills add LeonChaoX/qinyan-academic-skills --skill peer-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing

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 Schematics
19
20	When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.
21
22	If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams:
23	- Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
24	- Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
25	- Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic
26
27	For new documents: Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text.
28
29	How to generate schematics:
30	```bash
31	python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png
32	```
33
34	The AI will automatically:
35	- Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
36	- Review and refine through multiple iterations
37	- Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
38	- Save outputs in the figures/ directory
39
40	When to add schematics:
41	- Peer review workflow diagrams
42	- Evaluation criteria decision trees
43	- Review process flowcharts
44	- Methodology assessment frameworks
45	- Quality assessment visualizations
46	- Reporting guidelines compliance diagrams
47	- Any complex concept that benefits from visualization
48
49	For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.
50
51	---
52
53	## Peer Review Workflow
54
55	Conduct peer review systematically through the following stages, adapting depth and focus based on the manuscript type and discipline.
56
57	### Stage 1: Initial Assessment
58
59	Begin with a high-level evaluation to determine the manuscript's scope, novelty, and overall quality.
60
61	Key Questions:
62	- What is the central research question or hypothesis?
63	- What are the main findings and conclusions?
64	- Is the work scientifically sound and significant?
65	- Is the work appropriate for the intended venue?
66	- Are there any immediate major flaws that would preclude publication?
67
68	Output: Brief summary (2-3 sentences) capturing the manuscript's essence and initial impression.
69
70	### Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review
71
72	Conduct a thorough evaluation of each manuscript section, documenting specific concerns and strengths.
73
74	#### Abstract and Title
75	- Accuracy: Does the abstract accurately reflect the study's content and conclusions?
76	- Clarity: Is the title specific, accurate, and informative?
77	- Completeness: Are key findings and methods summarized appropriately?
78	- Accessibility: Is the abstract comprehensible to a broad scientific audience?
79
80	#### Introduction
81	- Context: Is the background information adequate and current?
82	- Rationale: Is the research question clearly motivated and justified?
83	- Novelty: Is the work's originality and significance clearly articulated?
84	- Literature: Are relevant prior studies appropriately cited?
85	- Objectives: Are research aims/hypotheses clearly stated?
86
87	#### Methods
88	- Reproducibility: Can another researcher replicate the study from the description provided?
89	- Rigor: Are the methods appropriate for addressing the research questions?
90	- Detail: Are protocols, reagents, equipment, and parameters sufficiently described?
91	- Ethics: Are ethical approvals, consent, and data handling properly documented?
92	- Statistics: Are statistical methods appropriate, clearly described, and justified?
93	- Validation: Are controls, replicates, and validation approaches adequate?
94
95	Critical elements to verify:
96	- Sample sizes and power calculations
97	- Randomization and bl

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

peer-review

698stars61forks

View on GitHub

How to install peer-review?

leonchaox/qinyan-academic-skills/peer-review

$npx -y skills add LeonChaoX/qinyan-academic-skills --skill peer-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

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 Schematics
19
20	When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.
21
22	If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams:
23	- Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
24	- Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
25	- Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic
26
27	For new documents: Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text.
28
29	How to generate schematics:
30	```bash
31	python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png
32	```
33
34	The AI will automatically:
35	- Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
36	- Review and refine through multiple iterations
37	- Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
38	- Save outputs in the figures/ directory
39
40	When to add schematics:
41	- Peer review workflow diagrams
42	- Evaluation criteria decision trees
43	- Review process flowcharts
44	- Methodology assessment frameworks
45	- Quality assessment visualizations
46	- Reporting guidelines compliance diagrams
47	- Any complex concept that benefits from visualization
48
49	For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.
50
51	---
52
53	## Peer Review Workflow
54
55	Conduct peer review systematically through the following stages, adapting depth and focus based on the manuscript type and discipline.
56
57	### Stage 1: Initial Assessment
58
59	Begin with a high-level evaluation to determine the manuscript's scope, novelty, and overall quality.
60
61	Key Questions:
62	- What is the central research question or hypothesis?
63	- What are the main findings and conclusions?
64	- Is the work scientifically sound and significant?
65	- Is the work appropriate for the intended venue?
66	- Are there any immediate major flaws that would preclude publication?
67
68	Output: Brief summary (2-3 sentences) capturing the manuscript's essence and initial impression.
69
70	### Stage 2: Detailed Section-by-Section Review
71
72	Conduct a thorough evaluation of each manuscript section, documenting specific concerns and strengths.
73
74	#### Abstract and Title
75	- Accuracy: Does the abstract accurately reflect the study's content and conclusions?
76	- Clarity: Is the title specific, accurate, and informative?
77	- Completeness: Are key findings and methods summarized appropriately?
78	- Accessibility: Is the abstract comprehensible to a broad scientific audience?
79
80	#### Introduction
81	- Context: Is the background information adequate and current?
82	- Rationale: Is the research question clearly motivated and justified?
83	- Novelty: Is the work's originality and significance clearly articulated?
84	- Literature: Are relevant prior studies appropriately cited?
85	- Objectives: Are research aims/hypotheses clearly stated?
86
87	#### Methods
88	- Reproducibility: Can another researcher replicate the study from the description provided?
89	- Rigor: Are the methods appropriate for addressing the research questions?
90	- Detail: Are protocols, reagents, equipment, and parameters sufficiently described?
91	- Ethics: Are ethical approvals, consent, and data handling properly documented?
92	- Statistics: Are statistical methods appropriate, clearly described, and justified?
93	- Validation: Are controls, replicates, and validation approaches adequate?
94
95	Critical elements to verify:
96	- Sample sizes and power calculations
97	- Randomization and bl

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type