paper-self-review

name: paper-self-review description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers. version: 0.1.0

Paper Self-Review

A systematic paper quality checking tool that helps researchers conduct comprehensive self-review before submission.

Core Features

1. Structure Review

Check whether all sections of the paper are complete and conform to academic standards:

• Does the Abstract include problem, method, results, and contributions?
• Does the Introduction clearly articulate research motivation and background?
• Is the Method detailed enough to be reproducible?
• Do the Results sufficiently support the conclusions?
• Does the Discussion address limitations and future work?

2. Logic Consistency Check

Verify the logical coherence of the paper:

• Do research questions match the methodology?
• Does the experimental design support the research hypotheses?
• Are result interpretations reasonable?
• Are conclusions supported by evidence?

2a. Overclaiming Audit

• Every adjective in the title must be experimentally justified.
• BANNED title words unless justified across ≥3 model families AND ≥5 datasets: "universal", "general", "always", "any", "all".
• Every factual abstract sentence must map to a specific table or figure.
• No claim may have broader scope than the experimental design supports.
• Category-level claims require ≥2 datasets per category.

2b. Limitation-Claim Consistency

For every limitation acknowledged in the paper:

• Does it affect any stated claim?
• If yes: is the claim reduced in scope or addressed by an additional experiment?
• If neither: the claim must be weakened or removed.
• Acknowledging a limitation without adjusting claims is a reviewer red flag.

2c. Motivation-Measurement Alignment

If the paper motivates with efficiency claims, verify that wall-clock time, GPU memory, and throughput are measured — not just parameter counts.

3. Citation Completeness

Check the completeness and accuracy of citations:

• Are all citations present in the references?
• Is the reference format consistent?
• Are key related works cited?
• Do citations accurately reflect the original content?

4. Figure/Table Quality

Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of figures and tables:

• Do all figures/tables have clear titles and captions?
• Do figures/tables support the text narrative?
• Are figures/tables clear and readable?
• Do formats comply with journal/conference requirements?

5. Writing Clarity

Check writing clarity and readability:

• Is the language concise and clear?
• Is technical terminology used appropriately?
• Are sentence structures clear?
• Is paragraph organization logical?

Quality Checklist

Use this checklist for systematic paper self-review:

Paper Quality Checklist:
- [ ] Abstract includes problem, method, results, contributions
- [ ] Introduction clearly states research motivation
- [ ] Method is reproducible
- [ ] Results support conclusions
- [ ] Discussion addresses limitations
- [ ] All figures/tables have captions
- [ ] Citations are complete and accurate

When to Use

Use this skill in the following scenarios:

• Pre-submission check - Final review before submitting to a journal or conference
• After first draft - Systematic review after completing the first draft
• Before advisor review - Self-check before requesting advisor feedback to improve quality
• Post-revision verification - After revising based on reviewer comments, verify all issues are addressed
• Collaborator review - Quality check before sending to collaborators

Review Process

Follow these steps for systematic paper review:

Step 1: Structure Review

Start with the overall structure, checking if all sections are complete and logically coherent.

Step 2: Content Review

Dive into each section, checking content accuracy and completeness.

Step 3: Citation Check

Verify the completeness and accuracy of all citations.

Step 4: Figure/Table Review

Check the quality and captions of all figures and tables.

Step 5: Writing Quality

Review language expression and writing clarity.

Step 6: Final Checklist

Use the quality checklist for final verification.

Best Practices

Review Timing

• Spaced review - Wait 1-2 days after completing the draft before reviewing to maintain objectivity
• Multiple rounds - Conduct multiple review rounds, focusing on different aspects each time
• Print review - Print a hard copy for review; issues are easier to spot on paper

Review Techniques

• Reverse reading - Read from conclusion backwards to check logical coherence
• Read aloud - Reading the paper aloud helps identify language issues
• Reviewer perspective - Assume you are a reviewer and read critically

Common Issues

• Abstract too brief or too verbose
• Introduction lacks clear research question statement
• Method lacks sufficient detail for reproduction
• Results lack statistical significance tests
• Discussion doesn't address research limitations
• Figures/tables lack clear titles and captions
• Inconsistent citation formatting

Integration with Other Systems

Pre-Submission Pipeline

manuscript-production (Complete paper draft)
    |
paper-self-review (Systematic quality check)  <-- THIS SKILL
    |
    ├── ready with minor edits → post-acceptance
    └── needs revision → iterate with manuscript-production

Data Flow

• Depends on: manuscript-production (completed paper draft in paper/ directory)
• Also requires: claim-evidence-bridge output (claim-evidence-map.md) for claim-conclusion audit
• Also uses: results-analysis output (analysis-report.md, stats-appendix.md) for verifying claims against evidence
• Feeds into: post-acceptance (if ready), or revision loop back to manuscript-production
• Hook activation: Keyword trigger in skill-forced-eval.js — "self-review", "review paper", "check paper quality"
• No dedicated command: Triggered manually or as part of the manuscript production workflow

Upstream Input Requirements

If claim-evidence-map.md is missing, the Claim-Conclusion Audit section of the checklist cannot be completed. State: "claim-evidence-map.md not found. Claim-Conclusion Audit will be skipped. Run /map-claims to enable this check."

Reference Files

Load only what is needed:

• references/SECTION-CHECKLIST.md - section-by-section review questions and claim-conclusion audit
• references/FINAL-VERDICT.md - how to summarize submission readiness and blocking issues
• examples/example-self-review.md - example review output