peer-review

Follow a staged workflow: initial assessment, section-by-section review of abstract through references, statistical and methodological rigor checks, reproducibility assessment, and ethics verification. Organize output into a summary statement, numbered major comments, and minor comments with actionable suggestions.

Check the guideline matching the study type: CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, ARRIVE for animal research, and MIAME or MINSEQE for genomics. Verify that key checklist elements like sample size justification and flow diagrams are addressed.

Convert the PDF to images first rather than reading it as text, then inspect each slide for text overflow, element overlaps, font sizes below 18pt, and contrast problems. Document issues by slide number and evaluate content structure, citations, and slide count relative to talk duration.

Look for p-hacking, missing multiple testing corrections, absent effect sizes and confidence intervals, inappropriate test choices, pseudoreplication, and circular analysis. Also check for power analysis justification and proper handling of missing data.

Use this skill for formal review writing with structured deliverables like major and minor comments and compliance checklists. For evaluating claims and evidence quality without producing a formal review report, a general scientific critical thinking approach is more appropriate.