agentsclimarketplace

Review paper

Skill brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills/skills/41-sticerd-eee-sewage-econometrics-check/skills/review-paper

🔬 A curated collection of 23,000+ agent skills for empirical research across 8 social science disciplines. | 精选 23,000+ AI Agent 技能库，覆盖8大社会科学学科的实证研究。CoPaper.AI 20分钟完成一篇可复现的规范实证论文，并支持用户上传 Skills。-- Maintained by CoPaper.AI from Stanford REAP.

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill review-paper

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Simulated peer review of the sewage-house-prices manuscript. Dispatches 2 independent referee reviews (parallel) and an editorial decision (sequential). Produces referee reports and accept/revise/reject recommendation. This skill should be used when asked to "review the paper", "get feedback", "simulate peer review", or "what would referees say".

SKILL.md

4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review Paper

Simulate peer review of the "Sewage in Our Waters" manuscript by running two independent referee reviews and an editorial synthesis.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to .tex file, section number (e.g. 01), or all. Defaults to reviewing all sections in docs/overleaf/.

Project-Specific Context

Manuscript Location

  • Main document: docs/overleaf/_main.tex
  • Sections: docs/overleaf/01_introduction.tex through docs/overleaf/05_research_question.tex
  • Appendices: docs/overleaf/100_appendix_*.tex
  • Bibliography: docs/overleaf/refs.bib

Key Aspects for Referee Scrutiny

  • Identification: Do hedonic, repeat sales, long diff, DiD, upstream/downstream, dry spill approaches yield consistent results?
  • External validity: England-specific EDM data — how generalisable?
  • Data quality: EDM monitoring started 2021 — short panel concerns
  • Treatment measurement: Spill count vs hours, 12/24-hour counting methodology
  • Spatial matching: 10km maximum radius — appropriate?
  • Sorting: Do households sort based on sewage spill information?

Supporting Evidence

  • Regression output: output/tables/*.tex
  • Figures: output/figures/
  • Analysis scripts: scripts/R/09_analysis/
  • Quarto book: book/*.qmd

Workflow

Step 1: Context Gathering

  1. Read the manuscript sections from docs/overleaf/
  2. Read docs/overleaf/refs.bib for citation verification
  3. Scan output/tables/ for available regression output
  4. Scan output/figures/ for available figures
  5. Read relevant analysis scripts for methodology verification

Step 2: Referee 1 Review

Launch an Agent to conduct the first blind review:

Focus: Identification strategy and econometric rigour

Score across 5 dimensions:

  • Contribution (25%): Novelty, importance, gap filled in hedonic pricing / environmental disamenity literature
  • Identification (30%): Design validity, assumptions, threats across all 6 approaches
  • Data (20%): EDM data quality, Land Registry coverage, spatial matching methodology
  • Writing (15%): Clarity, structure, notation consistency
  • Journal Fit (10%): Appropriate for environmental/urban economics journals

Produce: summary, detailed comments by section, recommendation (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject).

Step 3: Referee 2 Review

Launch an Agent (in parallel with Referee 1) for the second blind review:

Focus: External validity, robustness, and alternative explanations

Emphasis on:

  • Are results robust across radii (250m-10km)?
  • Can sorting explain the findings?
  • Do results differ for sales vs rentals — and why?
  • Is the dry spill identification convincing?
  • How does the upstream/downstream analysis strengthen or weaken the story?

Same 5-dimension scoring, independent of Referee 1.

Step 4: Editorial Synthesis

After both referee reviews complete:

  • Read both reports
  • Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
  • Weigh referee recommendations
  • Specify which concerns are mandatory vs optional to address
  • Make recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

Step 5: Present Results

# Peer Review Report: Sewage in Our Waters
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## Editorial Decision: [Accept / Minor / Major / Reject]

## Referee 1 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]

## Referee 2 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]

## Editor's Assessment
- **Referee agreement:** [Where they agree, where they disagree]
- **Mandatory revisions:** [List]
- **Optional improvements:** [List]

## Full Reports
- Referee 1: output/log/referee_1_report.md
- Referee 2: output/log/referee_2_report.md
- Editor: output/log/editorial_decision.md

Save all reports to output/log/.

Principles

  • Independence. Referees do not see each other's reports. Run in parallel.
  • Constructive criticism. The goal is to improve the paper, not tear it down.
  • Specific feedback. Every concern must cite exact sections, equations, or tables.
  • Calibrated severity. A working draft gets developmental feedback. A near-final manuscript gets referee-level scrutiny.
  • Cross-reference against actual output. Verify numbers against output/tables/.
  • Editor synthesizes. The Editor resolves referee disagreements and prioritizes revisions.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.