---

name: manuscript-review description: Systematically evaluate scientific manuscripts for methodology, statistics, reproducibility, and scholarly rigor. Provides structured feedback following peer review best practices. allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Bash, WebSearch, WebFetch]

Manuscript Review Assistant

Purpose

Guide thorough, constructive evaluation of scientific manuscripts across disciplines. This skill provides a structured framework for assessing methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and presentation quality.

Review Process

Phase 1: Initial Assessment

• Evaluate scope alignment with venue
• Assess novelty and contribution
• Gauge overall quality and completeness

Phase 2: Section-by-Section Analysis

Abstract

• Accurate summary of findings?
• Appropriate length and structure?
• Key results clearly stated?

Introduction

• Context established appropriately?
• Gap in knowledge identified?
• Objectives clearly stated?

Methods

• Sufficient detail for replication?
• Appropriate study design?
• Statistical approach justified?

Results

• Findings presented objectively?
• Figures and tables clear?
• Statistics reported correctly?

Discussion

• Results interpreted appropriately?
• Limitations acknowledged?
• Conclusions supported by data?

Phase 3: Technical Rigor

Methodological Assessment

• Sample size justification
• Control conditions
• Randomization and blinding
• Measurement validity

Statistical Evaluation

• Appropriate tests selected
• Assumptions verified
• Effect sizes reported
• Multiple comparisons addressed

Phase 4: Reproducibility Check

• Data availability statement present?
• Code/materials accessible?
• Protocol detail sufficient?
• Reporting standards followed?

Phase 5: Presentation Quality

• Figures clear and informative?
• Tables appropriately formatted?
• Writing clear and accessible?
• Organization logical?

Phase 6: Ethical Review

• Human subjects approval documented?
• Animal welfare addressed?
• Conflicts disclosed?
• Prior work properly cited?

Feedback Structure

Organize comments hierarchically:

Summary Statement

Overall assessment (2-3 sentences)

Major Comments

Fundamental issues affecting validity or conclusions

• Number these clearly
• Explain the concern
• Suggest remediation

Minor Comments

Improvements that would strengthen the work

• Clarity suggestions
• Additional analyses
• Presentation tweaks

Questions for Authors

Clarifications needed to complete review

Constructive Review Principles

• Acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses
• Be specific rather than vague
• Explain reasoning behind concerns
• Suggest solutions where possible
• Maintain respectful, professional tone
• Focus on the work, not the authors

Discipline-Specific Considerations

Adjust focus based on field:

• Clinical research: Patient safety, CONSORT/STROBE adherence
• Laboratory science: Technical replication, controls
• Computational work: Code availability, validation
• Qualitative research: Rigor criteria differ (credibility, transferability)

Common Issues Checklist

• Overstated conclusions
• Missing control conditions
• Inappropriate statistical tests
• p-hacking indicators
• Inadequate sample size
• Cherry-picked results
• Missing limitations discussion
• Inadequate prior work citation

Integration

Coordinates with:

• academic-writing for understanding manuscript standards
• reference-management for citation verification
• lit-review for assessing literature coverage