Manuscript Review
Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript — the kind of report a top-journal referee would write.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to a paper (.tex,.pdf, or.qmd), or a filename in master_supporting_docs/.
Steps
- Locate and read the manuscript. Check:
- Direct path from $ARGUMENTS - master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/$ARGUMENTS - Glob for partial matches
- Read the full paper end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time).
- Evaluate across 6 dimensions (see below).
- Generate 3-5 "referee objections" — the tough questions a top referee would ask.
- Produce the review report.
- Save to
quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md
Review Dimensions
1. Argument Structure
- Is the research question clearly stated?
- Does the introduction motivate the question effectively?
- Is the logical flow sound (question → method → results → conclusion)?
- Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
2. Identification Strategy
- Is the causal claim credible?
- What are the key identifying assumptions? Are they stated explicitly?
- Are there threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error)?
- Are robustness checks adequate?
- Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?
3. Econometric Specification
- Correct standard errors (clustered? robust? bootstrap?)?
- Appropriate functional form?
- Sample selection issues?
- Multiple testing concerns?
- Are point estimates economically meaningful (not just statistically significant)?
4. Literature Positioning
- Are the key papers cited?
- Is prior work characterized accurately?
- Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
- Any missing citations that a referee would flag?
5. Writing Quality
- Clarity and concision
- Academic tone
- Consistent notation throughout
- Abstract effectively summarizes the paper
- Tables and figures are self-contained (clear labels, notes, sources)
6. Presentation
- Are tables and figures well-designed?
- Is notation consistent throughout?
- Are there any typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues?
- Is the paper the right length for the contribution?
Output Format
# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill
**File:** [path to manuscript]
## Summary Assessment
**Overall recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject]
[2-3 paragraph summary: main contribution, strengths, and key concerns]
## Strengths
1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]
## Major Concerns
### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Argument / Literature / Writing / Presentation]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address it]
- **Location:** [Section/page/table if applicable]
[Repeat for each major concern]
## Minor Concerns
### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [Description]
- **Suggestion:** [Fix]
[Repeat]
## Referee Objections
These are the tough questions a top referee would likely raise:
### RO1: [Question]
**Why it matters:** [Why this could be fatal]
**How to address it:** [Suggested response or additional analysis]
[Repeat for 3-5 objections]
## Specific Comments
[Line-by-line or section-by-section comments, if any]
## Summary Statistics
| Dimension | Rating (1-5) |
|-----------|-------------|
| Argument Structure | [N] |
| Identification | [N] |
| Econometrics | [N] |
| Literature | [N] |
| Writing | [N] |
| Presentation | [N] |
| **Overall** | **[N]** |Principles
- Be constructive. Every criticism should come with a suggestion.
- Be specific. Reference exact sections, equations, tables.
- Think like a referee at a top-5 journal. What would make them reject?
- Distinguish fatal flaws from minor issues. Not everything is equally important.
- Acknowledge what's done well. Good research deserves recognition.
- Do NOT fabricate details. If you can't read a section clearly, say so.