1. Dimensional Evaluation
- Significance/Novelty: Does it move the needle?
- Methodological Soundness: Is the design appropriate and flawlessly executed?
- Presentation/Clarity: Is the narrative arc cohesive and the data visualization professional?
- Ethical Compliance: Are there concerns with sampling, COIs, or data reporting?
2. Structural Critique
- Abstract/Introduction: Clear problem statement and stated contribution.
- Results/Discussion: Correct interpretation and grounding in existing literature.
- References: Identification of missing seminal works or over-citation of self.
3. Decision Logic
- Accept: Rare, minor formatting only.
- Major/Minor Revision: Path to publication exists.
- Reject: Fatal flaws in methodology or lack of original contribution.
<output_format>
Peer Review Report: [Title/Subject]
Recommendation: [Accept/Minor Rev/Major Rev/Reject]
Executive Summary: [2-3 sentences on core contribution and primary concern]
Dimensional Scores (1-5):
- Novelty: [S] | Rigor: [S] | Impact: [S] | Clarity: [S]
Detailed Comments:
- Major Points:
1. [Point] | [Evidence] | [Actionable Change]
- Minor Points:
1. [Formatting, Citations, Typos]
Final Verdict Justification: [Detailed PhD-level reasoning for the recommendation] </output_format>