peer-review

Guide stage-by-stage peer reviews of manuscripts using CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA checklists.

22|4|Updated May 25, 2026

Search Tags:#PRISMA #manuscript #structured-feedback #CONSORT #peer-review #STROBE #reporting-guidelines

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/crazymsn/academic-skills --skill peer-review-crazymsn

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: peer-review
Source: https://github.com/crazymsn/academic-skills/tree/main/academic-skills/peer-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/crazymsn/academic-skills --skill peer-review-crazymsn

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Structured, checklist-based guidance to perform rigorous, reproducible peer reviews of manuscripts, grants, and reports, enabling consistent evaluation across disciplines.

Core Features & Use Cases

Stage-by-stage evaluation workflow (Initial Assessment, Detailed Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, References, and Ethics) aligned with major guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) and standard critique templates.
References and issue catalogs to support reproducibility and quality control, plus structured feedback templates (major/minor comments) for authors.
Reproducibility and transparency checks, including data and methods reporting, risk of bias considerations, and ethical disclosures, with a final, consolidated review report.

Quick Start

Run a comprehensive peer-review on a manuscript using the included guidelines and generate a structured feedback report.

Frequently Asked Questions about peer-review

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

FAQPage Schema

How do I perform a structured manuscript peer review using reporting guidelines?▼

Structured manuscript peer review uses stage-by-stage checklist workflows aligned with reporting guidelines like CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA to evaluate methodology, results, and ethics. This ensures reproducible assessments and generates structured major and minor feedback comments for authors.

What reporting guidelines are supported for systematic review and manuscript evaluation?▼

Supported reporting guidelines include CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA, which are applied during the methodology and results evaluation stages. These checklists ensure transparent, compliant assessments for manuscripts, grants, and systematic reviews across disciplines.

Can I use checklist-driven peer review for evaluating research grants and reports?▼

Checklist-driven peer review supports evaluating research grants, manuscripts, and reports across academic disciplines. It applies standardized critique templates and risk of bias considerations to provide consistent, evidence-based feedback regardless of the document type.

How do I generate reproducible feedback for authors after a detailed manuscript review?▼

Reproducible author feedback is generated using structured templates that separate major and minor comments after a detailed review. The process includes transparency checks on data reporting and methods, culminating in a final consolidated review report.

What is the best way to check risk of bias and ethical disclosures during peer review?▼

Checking risk of bias and ethical disclosures involves dedicated evaluation stages within the checklist-driven peer review workflow. Reviewers verify data reporting transparency, methods reproducibility, and ethical statements using issue catalogs and guideline references.

Does checklist-based peer review work for systematic reviews using PRISMA guidelines?▼

Checklist-based peer review explicitly supports systematic reviews by applying PRISMA guidelines during the methodology and results evaluation stages. This ensures reproducibility, transparent assessment, and compliant structured feedback for systematic review manuscripts.