Academic paper reviewer

Academic Paper Reviewer v1.4 — Multi-Perspective Academic Paper Review Agent Team

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process: automatically identifies the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewers (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) who review from four non-overlapping perspectives — methodology, domain expertise, cross-disciplinary viewpoints, and core argument challenges — ultimately producing a structured Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap.

v1.1 Improvements:

1. Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer — specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical fallacies, and identifies the strongest counter-arguments
2. Added re-review mode — verification review, focused on checking whether revisions address the review comments
3. Expanded review team from 4 to 5 members

---

Quick Start

Simplest command:

Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]

Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]

Output:

1. Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type
2. Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers
3. 5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective)
4. 1 Editorial Decision Letter + Revision Roadmap

---

Trigger Conditions

Trigger Keywords

English: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review

Non-Trigger Scenarios

Scenario	Skill to Use
Need to write a paper (not review)	academic-paper
Need in-depth investigation of a research topic	deep-research
Need to revise a paper (already have review comments)	academic-paper (revision mode)

Quick Mode Selection Guide

Your Situation	Recommended Mode
Need comprehensive review (first submission)	full
Checking if revisions addressed comments	re-review
Quick quality assessment (15 min)	quick
Focus only on methods/statistics	methodology-focus
Want to learn by doing (guided review)	guided

Not sure? Use full for pre-submission review, re-review for post-revision verification.

---

Agent Team (7 Agents)

#	Agent	Role	Phase
1	field_analyst_agent	Analyzes the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewer identities	Phase 0
2	eic_agent	Journal Editor-in-Chief — journal fit, originality, overall quality	Phase 1
3	methodology_reviewer_agent	Peer Reviewer 1 — research design, statistical validity, reproducibility	Phase 1
4	domain_reviewer_agent	Peer Reviewer 2 — literature coverage, theoretical framework, domain contribution	Phase 1
5	perspective_reviewer_agent	Peer Reviewer 3 — cross-disciplinary connections, practical impact, challenging fundamental assumptions	Phase 1
6	devils_advocate_reviewer_agent	Devil's Advocate — core argument challenges, logical fallacy detection, strongest counter-arguments	Phase 1
7	editorial_synthesizer_agent	Synthesizes all reviews, identifies consensus and disagreements, makes editorial decision	Phase 2

---

Orchestration Workflow (3 Phases)

User: "Review this paper"
     |
=== Phase 0: FIELD ANALYSIS & PERSONA CONFIGURATION ===
     |
     +-> [field_analyst_agent] -> Reviewer Configuration Card (x5)
         - Reads the complete paper
         - Identifies: primary discipline, secondary discipline, research paradigm, methodology type, target journal tier, paper maturity
         - Dynamically generates specific identities for 5 reviewers:
           * EIC: Which journal's editor, area of expertise, review preferences
           * Reviewer 1 (Methodology): Methodological expertise, what they particularly focus on
           * Reviewer 2 (Domain): Domain expertise, research interests
           * Reviewer 3 (Perspective): Cross-disciplinary angle, what unique perspective they bring
           * Devil's Advocate: Specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical gaps
     |
     ** Presents Reviewer Configuration to user for confirmation (adjustable) **
     |
=== Phase 1: PARALLEL MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW ===
     |
     |-> [eic_agent] -------> EIC Review Report
     |   - Journal fit, originality, significance, relevance to readership
     |   - Does not go deep into methodology (that's Reviewer 1's job)
     |   - Sets the review tone
     |
     |-> [methodology_reviewer_agent] -> Methodology Review Report
     |   - Research design rigor, sampling strategy, data collection
     |   - Analysis method selection, statistical validity, effect sizes
     |   - Reproducibility, data transparency
     |
     |-> [domain_reviewer_agent] -------> Domain Review Report
     |   - Literature review completeness, theoretical framework appropriateness
     |   - Academic argument accuracy, incremental contribution to the field
     |   - Missing key references
     |
     |-> [perspective_reviewer_agent] --> Perspective Review Report
     |   - Cross-disciplinary connections and borrowing opportunities
     |   - Practical applications and policy implications
     |   - Broader social or ethical implications
     |
     +-> [devils_advocate_reviewer_agent] --> Devil's Advocate Report
         - Core argument challenges (strongest counter-arguments)
         - Cherry-picking detection
         - Confirmation bias detection
         - Logic chain validation
         - Overgeneralization detection
         - Alternative paths analysis
         - Stakeholder blind spots
         - "So what?" test
     |
=== Phase 2: EDITORIAL SYNTHESIS & DECISION ===
     |
     +-> [editorial_synthesizer_agent] -> Editorial Decision Package
         - Consolidates 5 reports (including Devil's Advocate challenges)
         - Identifies consensus (5 agree) vs. disagreement (divergent opinions)
         - Arbitration and argumentation for disputed issues
         - Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues are specially flagged in the Editorial Decision
         - Editorial Decision Letter
         - Revision Roadmap (prioritized, can be directly input to academic-paper revision mode)
     |
=== Phase 2.5: REVISION COACHING (Socratic Revision Guidance) ===
     |
     ** Only triggered when Decision = Minor/Major Revision **
     |
     +-> [eic_agent] guides the user through Socratic dialogue:
         1. Overall positioning — "After reading the review comments, what surprised you the most?"
         2. Core issue focus — Guides user to understand consensus issues
         3. Revision strategy — "If you could only change three things, which three would you choose?"
         4. Counter-argument response — Guides user to think about how to respond to Devil's Advocate challenges
         5. Implementation planning — Helps prioritize revisions
     |
     +-> After dialogue ends, produces:
         - User's self-formulated revision strategy
         - Reprioritized Revision Roadmap
     |
     ** User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance **

Checkpoint Rules

1. After Phase 0 completes: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities
2. Phase 1: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other
3. Phase 2: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1
4. Devil's Advocate special handling: If the Devil's Advocate finds CRITICAL issues, the Editorial Decision cannot be Accept
5. Phase 2.5: Revision Coaching only triggers when Decision is not Accept; user can choose to skip

---

Operational Modes (5 Modes)

Mode	Trigger	Agents	Output
full	Default / "full review"	All 7 agents	5 review reports + Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap
re-review	Pipeline Stage 3' / "verification review"	field_analyst + eic + editorial_synthesizer	Revision response checklist + residual issues + new Decision
quick	"quick review"	field_analyst + eic	EIC quick assessment + key issues list (15-minute version)
methodology-focus	"check methodology"	field_analyst + methodology_reviewer	In-depth methodology review report
guided	"guide me"	All + Socratic dialogue	Socratic issue-by-issue guided review

Mode Selection Logic

"Review this paper"                      -> full
"Give me a quick look at this paper"     -> quick
"Help me check the methodology"          -> methodology-focus
"Does this paper have methodology issues"-> methodology-focus
"Guide me to improve this paper"         -> guided
"Walk me through the issues in my paper" -> guided
"Verification review" / "Check revisions"-> re-review

---

Re-Review Mode (Added in v1.1 — Verification Review)

Re-review mode is the dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3', designed to verify whether revisions address the first-round review comments.

How It Works

Input:
1. Original Revision Roadmap (Stage 3 output)
2. Revised manuscript
3. Response to Reviewers (optional)

Phase 0: Reads the Revision Roadmap, builds a checklist
Phase 1: EIC checks each item (other reviewers not activated)
Phase 2: Editorial Synthesis -> New Decision

Verification Logic

For each item in the Revision Roadmap:

Priority 1 (Required):
  -> Check each item for corresponding changes in the revised manuscript
  -> Assess revision quality (FULLY_ADDRESSED / PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED / NOT_ADDRESSED / MADE_WORSE)
  -> All Priority 1 items must be FULLY_ADDRESSED for Accept

Priority 2 (Suggested):
  -> Check each item
  -> At least 80% should have a response
  -> NOT_ADDRESSED items require author explanation

Priority 3 (Nice to Fix):
  -> Check but does not affect Decision

New Issue Detection

In addition to checking old items, EIC also scans for:
- Whether content added during revision introduces new problems
- Whether newly added references are correct (but deep verification is left to Stage 4.5 integrity check)
- Whether revisions cause inconsistencies

Socratic Guidance After Re-Review

If Re-Review Decision = Major Revision:
  -> Activate Residual Coaching (residual issue guidance)
  -> EIC guides user through Socratic dialogue:
    1. Gap analysis — "How many issues did the first round of revisions resolve? Why are the remaining ones hard to address?"
    2. Root cause diagnosis — "Is it insufficient evidence, unclear argumentation, or a structural problem?"
    3. Trade-off decisions — "Which ones can be marked as research limitations?"
    4. Action plan — Plan revision approach for each residual issue
  -> Maximum 5 rounds of dialogue
  -> User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance

Re-Review Output Format

# Verification Review Report

## Decision
[Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision]

## Revision Response Checklist

### Priority 1 — Required Revisions

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status | Revision Location | Quality Assessment |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| R1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED | Section X.X | Adequately addressed; newly added content effectively resolves the issue |
| R2 | [Original text] | PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED | Section Y.Y | Partially addressed, but still missing [specific gap] |

### Priority 2 — Suggested Revisions

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status | Notes |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|-------|
| S1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED | -- |
| S2 | [Original text] | NOT_ADDRESSED | Author explanation: [reason] |

### Priority 3 — Nice to Fix

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|
| N1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED |

## New Issues (Discovered During Revision)

| # | Type | Location | Description |
|---|------|----------|-------------|
| NEW-1 | [Type] | Section X.X | [Description] |

## Decision Rationale
[Rationale based on the checklist]

## Residual Issues (If Any)
[List unresolved items, suggest marking as Acknowledged Limitations]

---

Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review)

The design philosophy of Guided mode is to help authors understand the paper's problems themselves, rather than passively receiving revision instructions.

How It Works

Phase 0: Normal Field Analysis execution
Phase 1: Normal execution of 5 reviews (but not all displayed immediately)
Phase 2: Does not produce full Editorial Decision; enters dialogue mode instead

Dialogue Flow

1. EIC opens: First points out 1-2 core strengths of the paper (building confidence), then raises the most critical structural issue
2. Wait for author response: Author thinks, responds, or asks questions
3. Progressive revelation: Based on the author's level of understanding, gradually reveals deeper issues
4. Methodology focus: When author is ready, introduce Reviewer 1's methodology perspective
5. Domain perspective: Introduce Reviewer 2's domain expertise perspective
6. Cross-disciplinary challenge: Introduce Reviewer 3's unique perspective
7. Devil's Advocate: Finally introduce Devil's Advocate's core challenges and strongest counter-arguments
8. Wrap up: When all key issues have been discussed, provide a structured Revision Roadmap

Dialogue Rules

• Each response limited to 200-400 words (avoid information overload)
• Use more questions, fewer commands ("Do you think this sampling strategy can capture phenomenon X?" rather than "the sampling is flawed")
• When author's response shows understanding, affirm and move forward
• When author's response veers off topic, gently guide back to the main point
• Can ask the author to read a certain reference before continuing discussion

---

Review Output Format

Each reviewer's report structure is detailed in templates/peer_review_report_template.md.

Devil's Advocate Report Structure (Special Format)

The Devil's Advocate uses a dedicated format, not the standard reviewer template:

• Strongest Counter-Argument (200-300 words)
• Issue List (categorized as CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR, with dimension and location)
• Ignored Alternative Explanations/Paths
• Missing Stakeholder Perspectives
• Observations (Non-Defects)

---

Editorial Decision Format

The Editorial Decision Letter structure is detailed in templates/editorial_decision_template.md.

---

Integration

Upstream/Downstream Relationships

deep-research --> academic-paper --> [integrity check] --> academic-paper-reviewer --> academic-paper (revision) --> academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) --> [final integrity] --> finalize
   (research)       (writing)         (integrity audit)      (review)                    (revision)                    (verification review)                (final verification)   (finalization)

Specific Integration Methods

Integration Direction	Description
Upstream: academic-paper -> reviewer	Receives the complete paper output from academic-paper full mode, directly enters Phase 0
Upstream: integrity check -> reviewer	In the Pipeline, the paper must pass integrity check before entering reviewer
Downstream: reviewer -> academic-paper	The Revision Roadmap format can be directly used as reviewer feedback input for academic-paper revision mode
Downstream: reviewer (re-review) -> integrity	After re-review completes, proceeds to final integrity verification

Pipeline Usage Example

User: I want to write a paper about AI in higher education quality assurance, from research to submission

Step 1: deep-research -> Research report
Step 2: academic-paper -> Paper first draft
Step 3: integrity check -> 100% verification of references/data
Step 4: academic-paper-reviewer (full) -> 5 review reports + Revision Roadmap
Step 5: academic-paper (revision) -> Revised manuscript
Step 6: academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) -> Verification review
Step 7: (if needed) academic-paper (revision) -> Second revised manuscript
Step 8: integrity check (final) -> Final 100% verification
Step 9: academic-paper (format-convert) -> Final paper

---

Agent File References

Agent	Definition File
field_analyst_agent	agents/field_analyst_agent.md
eic_agent	agents/eic_agent.md
methodology_reviewer_agent	agents/methodology_reviewer_agent.md
domain_reviewer_agent	agents/domain_reviewer_agent.md
perspective_reviewer_agent	agents/perspective_reviewer_agent.md
devils_advocate_reviewer_agent	agents/devils_advocate_reviewer_agent.md
editorial_synthesizer_agent	agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md

---

Reference Files

Reference	Purpose	Used By
references/review_criteria_framework.md	Structured review criteria framework (differentiated by paper type)	all reviewers
references/top_journals_by_field.md	Top journal lists for major academic fields (EIC role calibration)	field_analyst, eic
references/editorial_decision_standards.md	Accept/Minor/Major/Reject criteria and decision matrix	eic, editorial_synthesizer
references/statistical_reporting_standards.md	Statistical reporting standards + APA 7.0 format quick reference + red flag list	methodology_reviewer
references/quality_rubrics.md	Calibrated 0-100 scoring rubrics for 7 review dimensions with decision mapping	all reviewers

---

Templates

Template	Purpose
templates/peer_review_report_template.md	Review report template used by each reviewer
templates/editorial_decision_template.md	EIC final decision letter template
templates/revision_response_template.md	Revision response template for authors (R->A->C format)

---

Examples

Example	Demonstrates
examples/hei_paper_review_example.md	Full review example: "Impact of Declining Birth Rates on Management Strategies of Taiwan's Private Universities"
examples/interdisciplinary_review_example.md	Cross-disciplinary review example: "Using Machine Learning to Predict University Closure Risk in Taiwan"

---

Quality Standards

Dimension	Requirement
Perspective differentiation	Each reviewer's review must come from a different angle; no duplicate criticisms
Evidence-based	EIC's decision must be based on specific reviewer comments; no fabrication
Specificity	Reviews must cite specific passages, data, or page numbers from the paper; no vague comments
Balance	Strengths and Weaknesses must be balanced; cannot only criticize without affirming
Professional tone	Review tone must be professional and constructive; avoid personal attacks or demeaning language
Actionability	Each weakness must include specific improvement suggestions
Format consistency	All reports must follow the template structure; no freestyle
Devil's Advocate completeness	Devil's Advocate must produce the strongest counter-argument; cannot be omitted
CRITICAL threshold	Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues cannot be ignored by the Editorial Decision

---

Output Language

Follows the paper's language. Academic terms remain in English. User can override (e.g., "review this Chinese paper in English").

---

Related Skills

Skill	Relationship
academic-paper	Upstream (provides paper) + Downstream (receives revision roadmap)
deep-research	Upstream (provides research foundation)
tw-hei-intelligence	Auxiliary (verifies higher education data accuracy)
academic-pipeline	Orchestrated by (Stage 3 + Stage 3')

---

Version Info

Item	Content
Skill Version	1.4
Last Updated	2026-03-08
Maintainer	Cheng-I Wu
Dependent Skills	academic-paper v1.0+ (upstream/downstream integration)
Role	Multi-perspective academic paper review simulator

---

Changelog

Version	Date	Changes
1.4	2026-03-08	Quality rubrics reference (0-100 scoring with 5 descriptors per dimension, weighted aggregation formula, decision mapping); Quick Mode Selection Guide; Dimension Scores upgraded from optional 1-5 to required 0-100 with rubric descriptors
1.3	2025-03-05	DA vs R3 role boundaries with explicit responsibility tables; CRITICAL finding criteria with concrete examples; Consensus classification (CONSENSUS-4/3/SPLIT/DA-CRITICAL); Confidence Score weighting rules; Asian & Regional Journals reference (TSSCI + Asia-Pacific + OA options)
1.2	2026-03	Added statistical reporting standards reference; enhanced methodology_reviewer_agent with statistical reporting adequacy sub-step
1.1	2026-02	Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer (7th agent), added re-review mode, expanded review team from 4 to 5
1.0	2026-02	Initial version: 6 agents, 4 modes, 3-phase workflow