Paper Review

论文自我审查

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.

一种提交前学术论文自我审查的系统化方法。涵盖5维度审查清单、用于结构清晰度的反向提纲法、图表质量检查，以及反驳信准备。

When to Use This Skill

何时使用本技能

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
paper-rebuttal
skill instead.

用户希望在提交前审查或检查论文草稿
用户询问论文质量或完整性的反馈
用户希望为潜在的审稿人批评做准备
用户提到“审查论文”“检查我的草稿”“自我审查”

如果用户已收到审稿意见并需要撰写反驳信，请改用
paper-rebuttal
技能。

Prerequisites

前提条件

Before starting review, confirm the

paper-writing

handoff checklist is satisfied: all sections drafted, claims anchored to evidence, limitation section present, figures finalized, and no unresolved

\todo{}

markers. If any item is incomplete, finish writing before reviewing.

开始审查前，请确认

paper-writing

交接清单已完成：所有章节已起草、主张有证据支撑、局限性章节已存在、图表已定稿，且无未解决的

\todo{}

标记。若有任何项未完成，请先完成写作再进行审查。

The Perfectionist Approach

完美主义审查法

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

追求完美：审查自己的论文，考虑审稿人可能提出的每一个问题，并逐一解决。

应对负面评审的最佳防御是彻底的自我审查：

对抗性审查：以挑剔的审稿人视角阅读自己的论文
寻求导师反馈：请导师帮忙审查——反馈越多越好
解决所有问题：针对发现的每一个潜在弱点，要么修正它，要么准备好辩护方案

Counterintuitive Review Protocol

反直觉审查流程

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

在最终润色前执行以下流程：

先模拟拒稿：在撰写任何正面评价前，强迫自己写一段拒稿总结。
删除一项无依据的强硬主张：如果某项强硬主张缺乏直接证据，请删除它而非为之辩护。
评分可信度，而非仅关注成果提升：成果提升略低但公平性和可复现性更高的论文往往能获得更好的评审结果。
突出一项明确的局限性：将一个有意义的局限性从隐藏笔记移至论文中；透明度能提升可信度。
质疑你的创新性主张：自问“一位优秀的博士生能在一个下午推导出来吗？”如果是，缩小并明确你的创新性表述。

详见references/counterintuitive-review.md

5-Aspect Self-Review Checklist

5维度自我审查清单

Aspect 1: Contribution Sufficiency

维度1：贡献充分性

The paper does not provide readers with new knowledge.

Ask these questions to evaluate whether the contribution is sufficient:

Are the failure cases common? If the failure cases are frequent and obvious, reviewers may question whether the method is ready for publication.
Is the proposed technique well-explored? If the technique is already widely studied, what new insight or improvement do we bring?
Is the improvement foreseeable / well-known? If the improvement was predictable from combining known ideas, the novelty may be questioned.
Is the technique too straightforward? A straightforward application of existing techniques may lack sufficient contribution.

Red flag: If "yes" to any of these, strengthen the contribution narrative or add more technical depth.

论文未为读者提供新知识。

通过以下问题评估贡献是否充分：

**失败案例是否常见？**如果失败案例频繁且明显，审稿人可能会质疑该方法是否适合发表。
**所提出的技术是否已被充分研究？**如果该技术已被广泛研究，我们带来了哪些新见解或改进？
**改进是否可预见/众所周知？**如果改进是结合现有思路就能预测到的，那么创新性可能会受到质疑。
**技术是否过于简单？**对现有技术的直接应用可能缺乏足够的贡献。

危险信号：如果以上任何问题答案为“是”，请强化贡献叙事或增加更多技术深度。

Aspect 2: Writing Clarity

维度2：写作清晰度

Missing technical details, not reproducible; a method module lacks motivation.

Missing technical details? Would a reader be able to reproduce the method from the paper alone?
Missing module motivation? Does every module in the Method section explain why it exists, not just what it does?
Paragraph structure: Does each paragraph have a clear topic? Does the first sentence state the point?
Flow: Is the logical flow between paragraphs and sections smooth?
Terminology: Are terms used consistently throughout?

Red flag: If reproducibility is in doubt, add implementation details or supplementary material.

缺少技术细节、无法复现；方法模块缺乏动机阐述。

**缺少技术细节？**读者仅通过论文能否复现该方法？
**缺少模块动机？**方法部分的每个模块是否都解释了为什么存在，而非仅说明是什么？
段落结构：每个段落是否有明确的主题？首句是否点明核心观点？
逻辑流畅性：段落和章节之间的逻辑过渡是否顺畅？
术语一致性：全文术语使用是否一致？

危险信号：如果可复现性存疑，请补充实现细节或附加材料。

Aspect 3: Experimental Results Quality

维度3：实验结果质量

Only slightly better than previous methods; or better than previous methods but still not good enough.

Marginal improvement? If the improvement over SOTA is very small, is it statistically significant?
Absolute quality insufficient? Even if better than baselines, is the output quality good enough for the application?
Visual quality: Do qualitative results look convincing? Are improvements visible?

Red flag: If improvements are marginal, emphasize other advantages (speed, generalizability, simplicity) or add more challenging test cases.

仅略优于之前的方法；或优于之前的方法但仍不够好。

**提升幅度微小？**如果相比SOTA（当前最优技术）的提升非常小，是否具有统计显著性？
**绝对质量不足？**即使优于基线方法，输出质量是否足以满足应用需求？
视觉质量：定性结果是否有说服力？改进是否可见？

危险信号：如果提升幅度微小，请强调其他优势（速度、泛化性、简洁性）或添加更具挑战性的测试用例。

Aspect 4: Experimental Testing Completeness

维度4：实验测试完整性

Missing ablation studies; missing important baselines; missing important evaluation metrics; data too simple.

Missing ablation studies? Is every core contribution ablated?
Missing important baselines? Are recent SOTA methods included?
Missing evaluation metrics? Are all standard metrics for this task reported?
Datasets too simple? Do the benchmarks truly test the method's capabilities?
No failure case analysis? Honest failure analysis increases credibility.

Red flag: Missing ablations or baselines is one of the most common reasons for rejection.

缺少消融研究；缺少重要基线；缺少重要评估指标；数据过于简单。

**缺少消融研究？**每个核心贡献是否都进行了消融实验？
**缺少重要基线？**是否包含了最新的SOTA方法？
**缺少评估指标？**是否报告了该任务的所有标准指标？
**数据集过于简单？**基准测试是否真正测试了该方法的能力？
**未分析失败案例？**坦诚的失败分析能提升可信度。

危险信号：缺少消融研究或基线是最常见的拒稿原因之一。

Aspect 5: Method Design Issues

维度5：方法设计问题

Experimental setting is impractical; method has technical flaws; method is not robust; new method's costs outweigh its benefits.

Impractical experimental setting? Are assumptions realistic for the intended use case?
Technical flaws? Does the method have theoretical or conceptual weaknesses?
Not robust? Does the method require per-scene hyperparameter tuning?
Benefit < Limitation? Does the new module introduce limitations that outweigh its benefits?

Red flag: If the method requires significant tuning per scenario, add robustness experiments or acknowledge and address the limitation.

实验设置不切实际；方法存在技术缺陷；方法鲁棒性不足；新方法的成本超过其收益。

**实验设置不切实际？**假设是否符合预期使用场景的实际情况？
**存在技术缺陷？**方法是否存在理论或概念上的弱点？
**鲁棒性不足？**方法是否需要针对每个场景调整超参数？
**收益<局限性？**新模块引入的局限性是否超过其带来的收益？

危险信号：如果方法需要针对每个场景进行大量调参，请添加鲁棒性实验，或承认并解决该局限性。

Critical Reminder: Claims Must Have Support

重要提醒：所有主张必须有支撑

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:

Is it factually correct?
Is there an experiment or analysis that supports it?
Is the supporting experiment clearly referenced?

An unsupported claim — especially in the Abstract or Introduction — can be grounds for rejection.

论文中的每一项主张（尤其是摘要和引言部分）必须正确且有实验支撑。部分审稿人会因无依据的主张直接拒稿。

逐一检查摘要和引言中的每一项主张：

它是否符合事实？
是否有实验或分析支撑它？
支撑实验是否被清晰引用？

无依据的主张——尤其是在摘要或引言中——可能成为拒稿的理由。

Reverse-Outlining Technique

反向提纲法

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)

从已完成的段落中提取写作框架，检查逻辑是否顺畅。

写完一个章节（或整篇论文）后：

逐段阅读每个段落
写下每个段落的核心信息，用一句话概括
阅读核心信息的序列——逻辑是否顺畅？
识别断点：哪里的逻辑衔接显得突兀或不合理？
修正：重新组织段落、添加过渡句，或拆分/合并段落

将此方法应用于：

引言（检查叙事逻辑）
方法部分（检查模块介绍顺序是否合理）
实验部分（检查结果呈现顺序是否有意义）

Figure and Table Quality Checklist

�表质量检查清单

Figures

图片

Pipeline figure highlights novelty (not just explanation)
Pipeline figure looks distinct from prior work
Teaser figure is compelling and self-contained
All figures have clear captions
Resolution is high enough for print
Color-blind friendly (avoid red-green only distinctions)
Figures are referenced in the text

流程图突出创新性（而非仅解释内容）
流程图与已有研究的图有明显区别
预览图引人注目且独立完整
所有图片都有清晰的标题
分辨率足够用于印刷
对色弱友好（避免仅用红绿区分）
图片在正文中被引用

Tables

表格

Captions are above the table
No vertical lines
Using booktabs (
```
\toprule
```
,
```
\midrule
```
,
```
\bottomrule
```
)
Best results highlighted (bold/color)
Metric direction indicated (↑/↓)
Captions describe setup/notation, not results
All tables are referenced in the text

标题位于表格上方
无竖线
使用booktabs格式（
```
\toprule
```
,
```
\midrule
```
,
```
\bottomrule
```
）
最佳结果被突出显示（加粗/颜色）
标注指标方向（↑/↓）
标题描述设置/符号，而非结果
所有表格在正文中被引用

Conclusion and Limitation Check

结论与局限性检查

Conclusion summarizes contributions and key results
Limitation section is present (reviewers frequently flag its absence)
Limitations are about task/setting scope (like future work), not technical defects

Rule: "If our method does not fall below SOTA metrics, it is not a technical defect"
Limitations are honest but not self-defeating

结论总结了贡献和关键结果
存在局限性章节（审稿人经常会标记缺少该章节）
局限性针对任务/场景范围（如未来工作），而非技术缺陷

规则：“如果我们的方法未低于SOTA指标，则不属于技术缺陷”
局限性坦诚但不自我否定

Pre-Submission Final Checks

提交前最终检查

Handoff to Rebuttal

交接至反驳信技能

When reviews come back, use the

paper-rebuttal

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.

当收到评审意见后，请使用

paper-rebuttal

技能处理：

评分诊断与评审意见颜色编码
支持者策略（争取正面审稿人参与讨论）
18条关于结构、内容和语气的战术规则
反直觉反驳原则

你的自我审查成果（拒稿模拟、主张-证据审核、反直觉流程中的预反驳草稿）可直接用于反驳信撰写过程。

如需扩展版5维度检查清单（包含更详细的子问题），请参阅references/review-checklist.md。

如需对抗性压力测试和拒稿风险阈值，请参阅references/counterintuitive-review.md

paper-review

Original

Translation