peer-review

Name: peer-review
Author: richard-kim-79

44stars10forks

How to install peer-review?

richard-kim-79/archora-skills/peer-review

$npx -y skills add richard-kim-79/archora-skills --skill peer-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Simulates a full academic journal peer review with EIC decision and 3 independent reviewers (Methodology Expert, Domain Specialist, Devil's Advocate). Scores 1–10, provides major/minor comments, and issues a final verdict: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Use wh

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Peer Review Simulation
2
3	Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.
4
5	## Reviewers
6
7	\| Role \| Focus \|
8	\|------\|-------\|
9	\| Editor-in-Chief (EIC) \| Overall fit, quality, editorial decision \|
10	\| Reviewer 1 — Methodology Expert \| Research design, statistical rigor, reproducibility \|
11	\| Reviewer 2 — Domain Specialist \| Theoretical framework, literature coverage, contribution \|
12	\| Reviewer 3 — Devil's Advocate \| Weaknesses, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns \|
13
14	## Scoring
15
16	- 1–4: Reject
17	- 5–6: Major revision needed
18	- 7–8: Minor revision; publishable with changes
19	- 9–10: Accept; exceptional work
20
21	## Verdicts
22
23	- `ACCEPT` — publishable as-is
24	- `MINOR_REVISION` — small changes needed; likely accepted after revision
25	- `MAJOR_REVISION` — significant work required; re-review needed
26	- `REJECT` — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue
27
28	## Output Format
29
30	```markdown
31	# 🔬 Peer Review Simulation
32
33	> Final Decision: 🟠 Major Revision \| Overall Score: 6/10
34
35	## Editor-in-Chief Decision
36
37	Decision: 🟠 Major Revision
38	Score: 6/10
39
40	[3–4 sentence editorial summary]
41
42	---
43
44	## Reviewer Reports
45
46	### 🔬 Reviewer 1: Methodology Expert
47
48	Recommendation: 🟠 Major Revision \| Score: 6/10
49
50	[Overall impression]
51
52	Major Concerns:
53	- [Critical issue 1]
54	- [Critical issue 2]
55
56	Minor Suggestions:
57	- [Minor suggestion 1]
58
59	---
60	[... repeat for each reviewer ...]
61
62	## 🟠 Final Decision: Major Revision
63
64	### Priority Action Items
65
66	- [ ] [Most important revision 1]
67	- [ ] [Most important revision 2]
68	- [ ] [Most important revision 3]
69
70	\| Reviewer \| Score \| Recommendation \|
71	\|----------\|-------\|----------------\|
72	\| Editor-in-Chief \| 6/10 \| 🟠 Major Revision \|
73	\| Methodology Expert \| 6/10 \| 🟠 Major Revision \|
74	\| Domain Specialist \| 7/10 \| 🟡 Minor Revision \|
75	\| Devil's Advocate \| 5/10 \| 🟠 Major Revision \|
76	```
77
78	## Guidelines for honest reviews
79
80	- Score calibration: theoretical-only papers without original data should score 5–7 max
81	- Reviewers must disagree sometimes — a spread of 5–7 across reviewers is healthy
82	- Major concerns must reference specific claims or sections in the paper
83	- Minor suggestions must be genuinely minor — not disguised major concerns
84	- Devil's Advocate must find real weaknesses, not be contrarian for its own sake

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

peer-review

44stars10forks

View on GitHub

How to install peer-review?

richard-kim-79/archora-skills/peer-review

$npx -y skills add richard-kim-79/archora-skills --skill peer-review

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Peer Review Simulation
2
3	Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.
4
5	## Reviewers
6
7	\| Role \| Focus \|
8	\|------\|-------\|
9	\| Editor-in-Chief (EIC) \| Overall fit, quality, editorial decision \|
10	\| Reviewer 1 — Methodology Expert \| Research design, statistical rigor, reproducibility \|
11	\| Reviewer 2 — Domain Specialist \| Theoretical framework, literature coverage, contribution \|
12	\| Reviewer 3 — Devil's Advocate \| Weaknesses, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns \|
13
14	## Scoring
15
16	- 1–4: Reject
17	- 5–6: Major revision needed
18	- 7–8: Minor revision; publishable with changes
19	- 9–10: Accept; exceptional work
20
21	## Verdicts
22
23	- `ACCEPT` — publishable as-is
24	- `MINOR_REVISION` — small changes needed; likely accepted after revision
25	- `MAJOR_REVISION` — significant work required; re-review needed
26	- `REJECT` — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue
27
28	## Output Format
29
30	```markdown
31	# 🔬 Peer Review Simulation
32
33	> Final Decision: 🟠 Major Revision \| Overall Score: 6/10
34
35	## Editor-in-Chief Decision
36
37	Decision: 🟠 Major Revision
38	Score: 6/10
39
40	[3–4 sentence editorial summary]
41
42	---
43
44	## Reviewer Reports
45
46	### 🔬 Reviewer 1: Methodology Expert
47
48	Recommendation: 🟠 Major Revision \| Score: 6/10
49
50	[Overall impression]
51
52	Major Concerns:
53	- [Critical issue 1]
54	- [Critical issue 2]
55
56	Minor Suggestions:
57	- [Minor suggestion 1]
58
59	---
60	[... repeat for each reviewer ...]
61
62	## 🟠 Final Decision: Major Revision
63
64	### Priority Action Items
65
66	- [ ] [Most important revision 1]
67	- [ ] [Most important revision 2]
68	- [ ] [Most important revision 3]
69
70	\| Reviewer \| Score \| Recommendation \|
71	\|----------\|-------\|----------------\|
72	\| Editor-in-Chief \| 6/10 \| 🟠 Major Revision \|
73	\| Methodology Expert \| 6/10 \| 🟠 Major Revision \|
74	\| Domain Specialist \| 7/10 \| 🟡 Minor Revision \|
75	\| Devil's Advocate \| 5/10 \| 🟠 Major Revision \|
76	```
77
78	## Guidelines for honest reviews
79
80	- Score calibration: theoretical-only papers without original data should score 5–7 max
81	- Reviewers must disagree sometimes — a spread of 5–7 across reviewers is healthy
82	- Major concerns must reference specific claims or sections in the paper
83	- Minor suggestions must be genuinely minor — not disguised major concerns
84	- Devil's Advocate must find real weaknesses, not be contrarian for its own sake

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type