Back to Details

scientific-thinking-scholar-evaluation

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Scholar Evaluation

学术评价

Use this skill to evaluate academic or scientific work with a repeatable rubric.
使用此 skill，以可重复使用的评估量表评价学术或科研成果。

When to Use

适用场景

  • Reviewing a research paper, proposal, thesis chapter, or literature review.
  • Checking whether claims are supported by cited evidence.
  • Evaluating methodology, study design, analysis, or limitations.
  • Comparing two or more papers for quality or relevance.
  • Producing structured feedback for revision.
  • 评审研究论文、研究计划、论文章节或文献综述。
  • 检查论断是否得到引用证据的支持。
  • 评价研究方法、研究设计、分析过程或局限性。
  • 使用同一评估量表比较两篇或多篇论文的质量或相关性。
  • 为修改提供结构化反馈。

Evaluation Scope

评估范围

Start by identifying the artifact:
  • empirical research paper
  • theoretical paper
  • technical report
  • systematic or narrative literature review
  • research proposal
  • thesis or dissertation chapter
  • conference abstract or short paper
Then choose scope:
  • comprehensive: all rubric dimensions
  • targeted: one or two dimensions, such as method or citations
  • comparative: rank multiple works against the same rubric
首先识别待评价成果的类型：
  • 实证研究论文
  • 理论论文
  • 技术报告
  • 系统性或叙述性文献综述
  • 研究计划
  • 学位论文或博士论文章节
  • 会议摘要或短篇论文
然后选择评估范围：
  • comprehensive：涵盖所有评估维度
  • targeted：涵盖一个或两个维度，例如方法或引用
  • comparative：使用同一评估量表对多项成果进行排序和比较

Rubric

评估量表

Score each applicable dimension from 1 to 5:
  • 5: excellent; clear, rigorous, and publication-ready
  • 4: good; minor improvements needed
  • 3: adequate; meaningful gaps but usable
  • 2: weak; substantial revision needed
  • 1: poor; major validity or clarity problems
Use 
N/A
for dimensions that do not apply.
每个适用维度的评分为 1 至 5 分：
  • 5：优秀；表达清晰严谨，达到发表标准
  • 4：良好；仅需小幅改进
  • 3：合格；存在明显缺口，但仍可使用
  • 2：较弱；需要大幅修改
  • 1：较差；存在严重的效度或清晰度问题
不适用的维度使用 
N/A
。

1. Problem and Research Question

1. 问题与研究问题

  • Is the problem clear and specific?
  • Is the contribution meaningful?
  • Are scope and assumptions explicit?
  • Does the question match the claimed contribution?
  • 问题是否清晰且具体？
  • 贡献是否有意义？
  • 研究范围和假设是否明确？
  • 研究问题是否与所声明的贡献一致？

2. Literature and Context

2. 文献与研究背景

  • Is relevant prior work covered?
  • Does the work synthesize rather than merely list sources?
  • Are gaps accurately identified?
  • Are recent and foundational sources balanced?
  • 是否涵盖了相关的前人研究？
  • 该成果是否对文献进行了综合分析，而非仅罗列来源？
  • 是否准确识别了研究空白？
  • 是否兼顾了近期文献和基础性文献？

3. Methodology

3. 研究方法

  • Does the method answer the research question?
  • Are design choices justified?
  • Are variables, datasets, participants, or materials described clearly?
  • Could another researcher reproduce the work?
  • Are ethical and practical constraints acknowledged?
  • 研究方法是否能够回答研究问题？
  • 是否对研究设计选择进行了论证？
  • 是否清晰描述了变量、数据集、参与者或研究材料？
  • 其他研究者能否复现该研究？
  • 是否考虑了伦理和实际限制？

4. Data and Evidence

4. 数据与证据

  • Are data sources credible and appropriate?
  • Is sample size or corpus coverage adequate?
  • Are inclusion, exclusion, and preprocessing decisions documented?
  • Are missing data and bias risks discussed?
  • 数据来源是否可信且适当？
  • 样本量或语料库覆盖度是否充分？
  • 是否记录了纳入、排除和数据预处理决策？
  • 是否讨论了数据缺失和偏差风险？

5. Analysis

5. 分析

  • Are statistical, qualitative, or computational methods appropriate?
  • Are baselines and controls fair?
  • Are uncertainty, sensitivity, or robustness checks included when needed?
  • Are alternative explanations considered?
  • 统计、定性或计算方法是否适当？
  • 基线和对照是否公平合理？
  • 是否在必要时进行了不确定性、敏感性或稳健性检验？
  • 是否考虑了其他解释？

6. Results and Interpretation

6. 结果与解读

  • Are results clearly presented?
  • Do claims stay within the evidence?
  • Are figures, tables, and metrics understandable?
  • Are negative or null results handled honestly?
  • 结果是否呈现清晰？
  • 论断是否始终处于证据支持范围内？
  • 图表和评价指标是否易于理解？
  • 是否如实处理了负面结果或零结果？

7. Limitations and Threats to Validity

7. 局限性与效度威胁

  • Are limitations specific rather than generic?
  • Are internal, external, construct, and conclusion-validity risks addressed?
  • Does the paper distinguish speculation from demonstrated results?
  • 局限性是否具体，而非笼统描述？
  • 是否处理了内部效度、外部效度、构念效度和结论效度风险？
  • 论文是否区分了推测与已证实的结果？

8. Writing and Structure

8. 写作与结构

  • Is the argument easy to follow?
  • Are sections organized around the research question?
  • Are definitions and notation clear?
  • Is the tone precise and scholarly?
  • 论证是否易于理解？
  • 各章节是否围绕研究问题组织？
  • 定义和符号是否清晰？
  • 语气是否准确且符合学术规范？

9. Citations

9. 引用

  • Do cited papers support the claims attached to them?
  • Are primary sources used where possible?
  • Are reviews labeled as reviews?
  • Are preprints labeled as preprints?
  • Are citation metadata and links correct?
  • 被引论文是否支持与其关联的论断？
  • 是否尽可能使用了原始来源？
  • 综述类文献是否明确标注为综述？
  • 预印本是否明确标注为预印本？
  • 引用元数据和链接是否正确？

Review Process

评审流程

  1. Read the abstract, introduction, figures, and conclusion for claimed contribution.
  2. Read methods and results for evidence quality.
  3. Check the strongest claims against cited sources.
  4. Score each applicable dimension.
  5. Separate critical blockers from revision suggestions.
  6. End with concrete next edits.
  1. 阅读摘要、引言、图表和结论，以了解所声明的 贡献。
  2. 阅读方法和结果，以评估证据质量。
  3. 根据引用来源核查最关键的论断。
  4. 为每个适用维度评分。
  5. 区分关键阻碍问题与修改建议。
  6. 最后提出具体的后续修改方案。

Output Template

输出模板

markdown
undefined
markdown
undefined

Scholar Evaluation: <Artifact>

Scholar Evaluation: <Artifact>

Overall Assessment

Overall Assessment

  • Overall score: <1-5 or N/A>
  • Confidence: <high | medium | low>
  • Summary: <3-5 sentences>
  • Overall score: <1-5 or N/A>
  • Confidence: <high | medium | low>
  • Summary: <3-5 sentences>

Dimension Scores

Dimension Scores

DimensionScoreEvidenceRevision priority
Problem and question
Literature and context
Methodology
Data and evidence
Analysis
Results and interpretation
Limitations
Writing and structure
Citations
DimensionScoreEvidenceRevision priority
Problem and question
Literature and context
Methodology
Data and evidence
Analysis
Results and interpretation
Limitations
Writing and structure
Citations

Critical Issues

Critical Issues

Recommended Revisions

Recommended Revisions

Evidence Checks Needed

Evidence Checks Needed

undefined
undefined

Pitfalls

常见误区

  • Do not use the score as a substitute for concrete feedback.
  • Do not penalize a paper for omitting a dimension outside its scope.
  • Do not treat citation count, venue, or author reputation as proof of quality.
  • Do not accept unsupported claims just because they appear in the abstract.
  • 不要以评分代替具体反馈。
  • 不要因论文省略评估范围之外的维度而扣分。
  • 不要将引用数量、发表 venue 或作者声誉视为质量证明。
  • 不要仅因论断出现在摘要中就接受缺乏支持的论断。