Verified:GitHub

alterlab-peer-review

Evaluate scientific manuscripts through a stage-based peer-review workflow.

58|9|Updated Mar 16, 2026

Search Tags:#reproducibility #peer-review #manuscript-review #statistics-review #reporting-guidelines #constructive-feedback #methods-evaluation

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills --skill alterlab-peer-review

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: alterlab-peer-review
Source: https://github.com/AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills/tree/main/skills/writing-tools/alterlab-peer-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/AlterLab-IEU/AlterLab-Academic-Skills --skill alterlab-peer-review

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

This skill provides a structured, comprehensive framework for evaluating scientific manuscripts to improve rigor, transparency, and methodological quality.

Core Features & Use Cases

Stage-based workflow: guides reviewers from initial assessment to in-depth critique with actionable feedback.
Structured feedback: generates major and minor comments, line-by-line notes, and a final synthesis suitable for journal submissions.
Guideline alignment: references established reporting standards (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) and common issues to ensure completeness and fairness.
Reproducibility and transparency: emphasizes documentation, data availability checks, and reproducible analysis practices.
Use cases: suitable for evaluating manuscripts, grant proposals, and systematic reviews across disciplines.

Quick Start

Begin by selecting a manuscript and running through the Stage 1 initial assessment to produce a structured, actionable review.

Frequently Asked Questions about alterlab-peer-review

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema

How do I conduct a structured peer review of a scientific manuscript?▼

A structured peer review evaluates scientific manuscripts using a stage-based workflow, generating major and minor comments, line-by-line notes, and a final synthesis suitable for journal submissions.

Can I use reporting guidelines like CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA for manuscript evaluation?▼

Yes, manuscript evaluation can reference established reporting standards like CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA to ensure methodological completeness, transparency, and fairness across disciplines.

How do I check reproducibility and data availability when reviewing a research report?▼

Checking reproducibility involves evaluating data availability, documentation, and reproducible analysis practices during the manuscript review to ensure transparent and rigorous research reporting.

What is the best way to provide constructive feedback on methodology and statistics?▼

The best way to provide constructive feedback is through a standardized format that guides reviewers through methodology evaluation, statistics review, and actionable line-by-line notes.

Does this peer review workflow work for evaluating grant proposals and systematic reviews?▼

Yes, this peer review workflow is applicable for evaluating grant proposals, systematic reviews, and journal submissions across various scientific disciplines.

What are the limitations of using a stage-based checklist for manuscript review?▼

A stage-based checklist provides structured, standardized feedback but requires reviewers to interpret established guidelines and apply domain expertise to ensure fair manuscript evaluation.