Paper Review
A systematic approach to self-reviewing academic papers before submission. Covers a 5-aspect review checklist, reverse-outlining for structural clarity, figure/table quality checks, and rebuttal preparation.
When to Use This Skill
- User wants to review or check a paper draft before submission
- User asks for feedback on paper quality or completeness
- User wants to prepare for potential reviewer criticism
- User mentions "review paper", "check my draft", "self-review"
If the user has already received reviewer comments and needs to write a rebuttal, use the
skill instead.
Prerequisites
Before starting review, confirm the
handoff checklist is satisfied: all sections drafted, claims anchored to evidence, limitation section present, figures finalized, and no unresolved
markers. If any item is incomplete, finish writing before reviewing.
The Perfectionist Approach
Strive for perfection: review your own paper, consider every question a reviewer might ask, and address them one by one.
The best defense against negative reviews is a thorough self-review:
- Adversarial review: Read your own paper as a critical reviewer would
- Seek advisor feedback: Ask your advisor to review — the more feedback, the better
- Address everything: For every potential weakness you find, either fix it or prepare a defense
Counterintuitive Review Protocol
Run this protocol before final polishing:
- Reject-first simulation: Force yourself to write a one-paragraph reject summary before writing any positive comments.
- Delete one unsupported strong claim: If a strong claim lacks direct evidence, remove it instead of defending it.
- Score trust, not only score gains: Papers with slightly lower gains but higher fairness and reproducibility often receive better review outcomes.
- Promote one explicit limitation: Move one meaningful limitation from hidden notes into the paper; transparency can increase confidence.
- Attack your novelty claim: Ask "Could a strong PhD derive this in one afternoon?" If yes, narrow and sharpen the novelty statement.
See references/counterintuitive-review.md
5-Aspect Self-Review Checklist
Aspect 1: Contribution Sufficiency
The paper does not provide readers with new knowledge.
Ask these questions to evaluate whether the contribution is sufficient:
Red flag: If "yes" to any of these, strengthen the contribution narrative or add more technical depth.
Aspect 2: Writing Clarity
Missing technical details, not reproducible; a method module lacks motivation.
Red flag: If reproducibility is in doubt, add implementation details or supplementary material.
Aspect 3: Experimental Results Quality
Only slightly better than previous methods; or better than previous methods but still not good enough.
Red flag: If improvements are marginal, emphasize other advantages (speed, generalizability, simplicity) or add more challenging test cases.
Aspect 4: Experimental Testing Completeness
Missing ablation studies; missing important baselines; missing important evaluation metrics; data too simple.
Red flag: Missing ablations or baselines is one of the most common reasons for rejection.
Aspect 5: Method Design Issues
Experimental setting is impractical; method has technical flaws; method is not robust; new method's costs outweigh its benefits.
Red flag: If the method requires significant tuning per scenario, add robustness experiments or acknowledge and address the limitation.
Critical Reminder: Claims Must Have Support
Every claim in the paper (especially in the Abstract and Introduction) must be correct and supported by experiments. Some reviewers will reject a paper directly for unsupported claims.
Go through every claim in the Abstract and Introduction. For each claim:
An unsupported claim — especially in the Abstract or Introduction — can be grounds for rejection.
Reverse-Outlining Technique
Extract the writing plan from finished paragraphs and check whether the flow is smooth.
After writing a section (or the entire paper):
- Read each paragraph one at a time
- Write down the main message of each paragraph in one sentence
- Read the sequence of messages — does it flow logically?
- Identify breaks: Where does the flow feel abrupt or illogical?
- Fix: Reorganize paragraphs, add transitions, or split/merge paragraphs
Apply this to:
- Introduction (check narrative flow)
- Method (check if modules are presented in logical order)
- Experiments (check if results are presented in a meaningful sequence)
Figure and Table Quality Checklist
Figures
Tables
Conclusion and Limitation Check
Pre-Submission Final Checks
Handoff to Rebuttal
When reviews come back, use the
skill for:
- Score diagnosis and review color-coding
- Champion strategy (arming your positive reviewer for discussion)
- 18 tactical rules for structure, content, and tone
- Counterintuitive rebuttal principles
Your self-review artifacts (reject-first simulation, claim-evidence audit, prebuttal drafts from the counterintuitive protocol) feed directly into the rebuttal process.
See references/review-checklist.md for an expanded version of the 5-aspect checklist with more detailed sub-questions.
For adversarial stress testing and reject-risk thresholds, see references/counterintuitive-review.md.