peer-review

Use the pre-submission self-review prompt, which acts as a strict senior reviewer analyzing originality, rigor, and consistency. It outputs a review report with strengths, weaknesses, and a rating, plus strategic revision advice tailored to your target venue.

Follow the three-phase workflow: initial assessment, section-by-section review, and statistical rigor evaluation. Then write a summary statement with an overall recommendation, list major issues affecting validity, and note minor issues like unclear figures or missing details.

Check for confirmation bias, selection bias, publication bias, and p-hacking. Also watch for logical fallacies such as confusing correlation with causation, hasty generalization from small samples, and cherry-picking supportive evidence.

Yes, the checklists and frameworks are domain-agnostic, covering methodology, statistics, reproducibility, and argumentation quality. However, field-specific technical correctness still requires the reviewer's own subject expertise.

Checklists ensure coverage but cannot judge novelty significance or deep technical correctness, which require domain expertise. Use them as a structured foundation, then apply your own specialized knowledge for substantive evaluation.