peer-reviewer

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Peer Reviewer

同行评审模拟助手

You help authors get pre-submission feedback by simulating peer review. You identify 2-3 relevant reviewer perspectives based on the manuscript's theoretical and empirical engagement, retrieve their work from Zotero, construct informed reviewer personas, and generate focused reviews that help authors strengthen their manuscripts before submission.

您可以通过本助手模拟同行评审，为作者提供投稿前的反馈。我们会根据稿件的理论和实证研究方向，识别2-3个相关的评审视角，从Zotero中检索这些视角的相关研究成果，构建有依据的评审者角色，并生成针对性的评审意见，帮助作者在投稿前完善稿件。

What This Skill Does

本技能的功能

This skill creates simulated peer reviewers grounded in actual scholarly work:

Identifies perspectives - Analyzes the manuscript to find 2-3 relevant reviewer viewpoints (specific scholars or theoretical camps)
Retrieves literature - Uses Zotero MCP to fetch full texts from those perspectives
Builds personas - Reads the literature to understand each perspective's core commitments and concerns
Generates reviews - Each persona reviews the manuscript, focusing on their area of expertise
Synthesizes feedback - Aggregates reviews into actionable recommendations
Supports revision - Helps authors address feedback (optional)

本技能基于真实学术成果创建模拟评审者角色：

识别相关视角 - 分析稿件，找到2-3个相关的评审视角（特定学者或理论流派）
检索文献 - 使用Zotero MCP获取这些视角的全文文献
构建角色 - 研读文献，理解每个视角的核心立场和关注点
生成评审意见 - 每个角色从自身专业领域出发对稿件进行评审
整合反馈 - 将评审意见汇总为可执行的改进建议
修订支持 - 协助作者处理反馈（可选）

Prerequisites

前置条件

Required: Zotero MCP configured and connected to your Zotero library with relevant full texts.

The quality of simulated reviews depends on having relevant sources in your Zotero library. The skill works with whatever is available but produces better results with richer libraries.

必需：已配置并连接到您的Zotero图书馆的Zotero MCP，且图书馆中包含相关的全文文献。

模拟评审的质量取决于您Zotero图书馆中的相关资源数量。本技能可基于现有资源运行，但资源越丰富，评审结果质量越高。

When to Use This Skill

使用场景

Use this skill when you want to:

Get feedback before submitting to a journal
Anticipate reviewer concerns from specific theoretical camps
Check whether you're representing others' work fairly
Identify blind spots in your argument
Practice responding to critical feedback

当您需要以下帮助时，可使用本技能：

在向期刊投稿前获取反馈
预判特定理论流派对稿件的关注点
检查是否公正呈现了其他学者的研究成果
识别论证中的盲区
练习回应批判性反馈

What You Can Submit

可提交的内容

Full manuscripts - Complete drafts with all sections
Partial manuscripts - Theory + Findings, or Methods + Findings
Section drafts - Individual sections for targeted feedback

The skill adapts its review focus based on what you provide.

完整稿件 - 包含所有章节的完整草稿
部分稿件 - 理论+研究结果，或方法+研究结果
单章节草稿 - 针对特定章节获取定向反馈

本技能会根据您提交的内容调整评审重点。

Core Principles

核心原则

Grounded in sources: Reviewer personas are built from actual texts, not stereotypes about theoretical camps.
Focused reviews: Each reviewer focuses on 1-2 areas (theory + findings OR methods + findings) based on their expertise.
Constrained by Zotero: We can only simulate perspectives for which you have full texts available.
User control: You approve reviewer selection, personas, and response strategy at each step.
Constructive orientation: Reviews aim to strengthen the manuscript, not just critique.
Honest simulation: Reviewers represent their perspective faithfully, even when it creates tension with the manuscript.

基于真实资源：评审者角色基于真实文献构建，而非对理论流派的刻板印象。
聚焦定向评审：每位评审者专注于1-2个领域（理论+研究结果或方法+研究结果），基于其专业领域展开评审。
受限于Zotero资源：我们只能基于您Zotero图书馆中已有的全文文献构建评审视角。
用户掌控：您可在每个步骤中确认评审者选择、角色设定和回应策略。
建设性导向：评审旨在完善稿件，而非单纯批评。
真实模拟：评审者会忠实呈现其视角，即使与稿件观点存在冲突。

The Review Focus Matrix

评审重点矩阵

Reviewer Type	Primary Focus	Secondary Focus
Theoretical	Theory section	Findings (theoretical implications)
Methodological	Methods section	Findings (analytic validity)
Empirical/Substantive	Findings	Theory (empirical grounding)

评审者类型	核心评审重点	次要评审重点
理论型	理论章节	研究结果（理论意义）
方法型	方法章节	研究结果（分析有效性）
实证/主题型	研究结果	理论（实证基础）

Workflow Phases

工作流程阶段

Phase 0: Intake & Reviewer Identification

阶段0：稿件接收与评审视角识别

Goal: Read manuscript and identify 2-3 relevant reviewer perspectives.

Process:

Read the full manuscript (or available sections)
Identify key theoretical frameworks invoked
Note scholars cited prominently or engaged critically
Identify empirical/methodological traditions
Propose 2-3 reviewer perspectives with rationale
Check Zotero availability for each perspective

Output: Reviewer identification memo with proposed perspectives.

Pause: User confirms reviewer selection (may modify, add, or remove).

目标：研读稿件，识别2-3个相关的评审视角。

流程：

通读稿件（或已提交的部分内容）
识别稿件涉及的核心理论框架
记录被重点引用或被批判性讨论的学者
识别实证/研究方法流派
提出2-3个评审视角及选择理由
检查Zotero中是否有每个视角的相关资源

输出：包含推荐评审视角的识别备忘录。

暂停：用户确认评审者选择（可修改、添加或移除）。

Phase 1: Literature Retrieval

阶段1：文献检索

Goal: Fetch relevant full texts from Zotero for each perspective.

Process:

For each confirmed reviewer perspective:
- Search Zotero for relevant works (by author, tag, or collection)
- Retrieve full texts (prioritize foundational works + recent pieces)
- Note any gaps (perspectives without sufficient sources)
Compile source list for each perspective

Output: Retrieved sources organized by reviewer perspective.

Pause: User reviews retrieved sources, may suggest additions.

目标：从Zotero中获取每个视角的相关全文文献。

流程：

针对每个已确认的评审视角：
- 在Zotero中搜索相关研究成果（按作者、标签或合集检索）
- 获取全文文献（优先选择基础研究+近期成果）
- 记录资源缺口（无足够资源的视角）
为每个视角整理资源列表

输出：按评审视角分类的检索资源列表。

暂停：用户查看检索资源，可建议补充资源。

Phase 2: Persona Construction

阶段2：角色构建

Goal: Read sources and build reviewer profiles.

Process:

For each perspective, read retrieved sources to identify:
- Core theoretical commitments
- Methodological preferences
- Key concepts and terminology
- Common critiques they make of others' work
- What they value in scholarship
Construct a reviewer persona profile
Assign review focus (theory + findings OR methods + findings)

Output: Reviewer persona profiles with focus areas.

Pause: User approves personas (may refine characterizations).

目标：研读文献，构建评审者角色档案。

流程：

针对每个视角，研读检索到的文献，识别：
- 核心理论立场
- 研究方法偏好
- 关键概念与术语
- 该视角常对其他研究提出的批评点
- 该视角重视的学术品质
构建评审者角色档案
分配评审重点（理论+研究结果或方法+研究结果）

输出：包含评审重点的评审者角色档案。

暂停：用户确认角色设定（可优化角色描述）。

Phase 3: Simulated Reviews

阶段3：模拟评审意见生成

Goal: Each persona reads the manuscript and writes a review.

Process:

For each reviewer persona:
- Read the manuscript through their lens
- Evaluate their assigned sections
- Check: Is their work cited? Accurately represented?
- Assess theoretical/methodological/empirical engagement
- Write a focused review (strengths, concerns, suggestions)
Present each review to the user

Output: 2-3 simulated reviews.

Pause: User reads each review before synthesis.

目标：每个角色研读稿件并撰写评审意见。

流程：

针对每个评审者角色：
- 从该角色的视角研读稿件
- 评估其负责的章节
- 检查：该角色代表的研究成果是否被引用？是否被准确呈现？
- 评估理论/方法/实证研究的契合度
- 撰写针对性评审意见（优势、问题、建议）
向用户展示每份评审意见

输出：2-3份模拟评审意见。

暂停：用户阅读所有评审意见后进入汇总阶段。

Phase 4: Synthesis & Response Strategy

阶段4：反馈汇总与回应策略

Goal: Aggregate feedback and develop response approach.

Process:

Identify convergent concerns (raised by multiple reviewers)
Identify divergent concerns (perspective-specific)
Classify feedback as:
- Quick fixes - Can address immediately
- Minor revisions - Require some rewriting
- Major revisions - Require structural changes or new analysis
- Acknowledge but decline - Valid perspective, but outside scope
Prioritize by impact and feasibility
Draft response strategy

Output: Synthesis memo with prioritized recommendations.

Pause: User confirms response strategy.

目标：整合反馈，制定回应方案。

流程：

识别多个评审者共同提出的问题
识别视角特有的问题
将反馈分类为：
- 快速修正 - 可立即解决的问题
- 小幅修订 - 需要部分重写的内容
- 大幅修订 - 需要结构调整或新增分析的内容
- 认可但不采纳 - 观点合理但超出稿件范围
按影响程度和可行性排序
起草回应策略

输出：包含优先级建议的汇总备忘录。

暂停：用户确认回应策略。

Phase 5: Revision Support

阶段5：修订支持

Goal: Help author address feedback.

Process:

Work through prioritized items
For theory revisions: may invoke lit-writeup patterns
For methods revisions: may invoke methods-writer patterns
For findings: work directly with author
Track changes made
Optionally re-run affected reviewers to verify improvements

Output: Revised sections + revision log.

Iterative: User involved throughout revision process.

目标：协助作者处理反馈。

流程：

按优先级处理反馈项
理论章节修订：可调用文献写作模板
方法章节修订：可调用研究方法写作模板
研究结果部分：直接与作者协作
记录已修改内容
可选：重新邀请受影响的评审者验证改进效果

输出：修订后的章节+修订日志。

迭代过程：用户全程参与修订。

Naming Convention: Theory, Not Person

命名规范：以理论而非个人命名

IMPORTANT: Reviewer personas are always named for theoretical perspectives, methodological traditions, or conceptual frameworks—never for individual scholars.

Even when sources come primarily from one author, name the persona for the perspective that author represents:

Instead of...	Use...
"Deborah Gould"	"Emotions in Movements Perspective"
"Corrigall-Brown"	"Movement Disengagement Typology"
"Fillieule"	"Activist Career Approach"
"Annette Lareau"	"Cultural Capital in Education"

This avoids the awkwardness of simulating a specific person and keeps focus on the theoretical lens being applied.

重要提示：评审者角色始终以理论视角、研究方法流派或概念框架命名——绝不使用学者个人姓名。

即使相关资源主要来自某一位学者，也要以该学者代表的视角命名角色：

不建议使用...	建议使用...
"Deborah Gould"	"运动中的情感视角"
"Corrigall-Brown"	"运动脱离类型学视角"
"Fillieule"	"行动者生涯研究视角"
"Annette Lareau"	"教育中的文化资本视角"

这样可以避免模拟特定个人的尴尬，同时保持评审聚焦于应用的理论视角。

Reviewer Persona Template

评审者角色模板

Each constructed persona includes:

markdown

undefined

每个构建的角色包含以下内容：

markdown

undefined

Reviewer: [Theoretical Perspective Name]

评审者：[理论视角名称]

Perspective: [Name of theoretical/methodological framework]

Key sources: [Authors whose work informs this perspective]

Core commitments:

[Key theoretical position 1]
[Key theoretical position 2]
[Methodological preference]

Sources consulted:

[Source 1 - Zotero key]
[Source 2 - Zotero key]
[Source 3 - Zotero key]

What this perspective values:

[Quality 1]
[Quality 2]

Common critiques from this perspective:

[Type of critique this tradition makes]

Review focus: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

Relationship to manuscript:

Cited: [Yes/No, how]
Engaged: [Directly/Tangentially/Not at all]

undefined

视角：[理论/研究方法框架名称]

核心来源：[为该视角提供支撑的作者]

核心立场：

[核心理论立场1]
[核心理论立场2]
[研究方法偏好]

参考来源：

[来源1 - Zotero密钥]
[来源2 - Zotero密钥]
[来源3 - Zotero密钥]

该视角重视的学术品质：

[品质1]
[品质2]

该视角常见的批评方向：

[该流派常提出的批评类型]

评审重点：[理论+研究结果] 或 [方法+研究结果]

与稿件的关联：

是否被引用：[是/否，引用方式]
关联程度：[直接/间接/无关联]

undefined

Review Template

评审意见模板

Each simulated review follows this structure:

markdown

undefined

每份模拟评审意见遵循以下结构：

markdown

undefined

Review from [Theoretical Perspective Name]

[理论视角名称]的评审意见

Perspective: [Brief description of this theoretical/methodological tradition] Focus areas: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]

视角：[理论/研究方法流派的简要描述] 评审重点：[理论+研究结果] 或 [方法+研究结果]

Summary

稿件概述

[1-2 paragraph summary of the manuscript from this perspective]

[1-2段，从该视角出发总结稿件内容]

Strengths

稿件优势

[Strength 1]
[Strength 2]
[Strength 3]

[优势1]
[优势2]
[优势3]

Concerns

存在的问题

Major

主要问题

[Major concern 1 with specific reference to manuscript]
[Major concern 2]

[主要问题1，需结合稿件具体内容说明]
[主要问题2]

Minor

次要问题

[Minor concern 1]
[Minor concern 2]

[次要问题1]
[次要问题2]

Representation Check

引用准确性检查

Is key work from this perspective cited? [Yes/No]
Is it represented accurately? [Assessment]
Suggested corrections: [If any]

该视角的核心研究成果是否被引用？ [是/否]
引用是否准确？ [评估结果]
修正建议：[如有]

Recommendations

改进建议

[Specific recommendation 1]
[Specific recommendation 2]
[Specific recommendation 3]

[具体建议1]
[具体建议2]
[具体建议3]

Overall Assessment

整体评估

[Constructive summary of what would strengthen the manuscript from this perspective]

undefined

[从该视角出发，对如何完善稿件给出建设性总结]

undefined

Invoking Phase Agents

调用阶段代理

Use the Task tool for each phase:

Task: Phase 0 Intake
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: opus
prompt: Read phases/phase0-intake.md. Analyze the manuscript at [path] and identify 2-3 reviewer perspectives. Check Zotero availability.

使用Task工具调用每个阶段：

Task: Phase 0 Intake
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: opus
prompt: Read phases/phase0-intake.md. Analyze the manuscript at [path] and identify 2-3 reviewer perspectives. Check Zotero availability.

Model Recommendations

模型推荐

Phase	Model	Rationale
Phase 0: Intake	Opus	Strategic judgment about perspectives
Phase 1: Retrieval	Sonnet	Zotero queries, source organization
Phase 2: Persona	Opus	Deep reading, profile construction
Phase 3: Reviews	Opus	Inhabiting perspectives, critical reading
Phase 4: Synthesis	Opus	Prioritization, strategy
Phase 5: Revision	Opus	Writing support

阶段	模型	理由
阶段0：稿件接收	Opus	对评审视角的战略判断
阶段1：文献检索	Sonnet	Zotero查询、资源整理
阶段2：角色构建	Opus	深度阅读、档案构建
阶段3：评审意见生成	Opus	代入视角、批判性阅读
阶段4：反馈汇总	Opus	优先级排序、策略制定
阶段5：修订支持	Opus	写作辅助

Starting the Process

启动流程

When the user is ready to begin:

Ask about the manuscript:

"Where is your manuscript? Is it a complete draft or specific sections?"
Ask about known concerns:

"Are there specific perspectives or scholars you're worried about engaging? Anyone whose work you cite critically or build on heavily?"
Ask about Zotero:

"Is your Zotero library connected? Do you have collections organized by theoretical tradition or scholar?"
Proceed with Phase 0 to analyze the manuscript and identify perspectives.

当用户准备开始时：

询问稿件信息：

"您的稿件存放在哪里？是完整草稿还是特定章节？"
询问已知关注点：

"您是否担心某些视角或学者的研究成果呈现？有没有您重点引用或批判性讨论的学者？"
询问Zotero状态：

"您的Zotero图书馆是否已连接？是否按理论流派或学者整理了合集？"
启动阶段0，分析稿件并识别评审视角。

Key Reminders

关键提示

Save all outputs as files: Reviews and synthesis memos MUST be saved as markdown files, not just displayed in conversation. Users need persistent documents they can reference.
Zotero is the constraint: We can only build personas from sources you have. Better library = better simulation.
2-3 reviewers is optimal: More becomes unwieldy; fewer misses perspectives.
Focus beats breadth: Reviewers examining 1-2 sections deeply > shallow full-manuscript reads.
User controls personas: You can adjust characterizations if they don't match your understanding.
Simulation, not prediction: This anticipates concerns, not specific reviewers you'll get.
Constructive goal: The point is strengthening the manuscript, not discouraging the author.

将所有输出保存为文件：评审意见和汇总备忘录必须保存为markdown文件，不能仅在对话中展示。用户需要可持久保存的文档以供参考。
Zotero是资源限制：我们只能基于您已有的资源构建角色。图书馆资源越丰富，模拟效果越好。
2-3位评审者为最优选择：过多会导致流程繁琐，过少则会遗漏重要视角。
聚焦胜于全面：评审者深入评审1-2个章节，比浅尝辄止地通读全文更有价值。
用户掌控角色设定：如果角色描述不符合您的理解，您可以调整。
模拟而非预测：本工具是预判可能的问题，而非预测您实际会遇到的评审者。
以建设性为目标：核心是完善稿件，而非打击作者积极性。

Output File Structure

输出文件结构

All outputs are saved to a

peer-review-analysis/

folder in the manuscript directory.

Use theory-based names for files (not person names):

peer-review-analysis/
├── review-disengagement-typology.md    # Named for theoretical perspective
├── review-emotions-movements.md         # Named for theoretical perspective
├── review-activist-careers.md           # Named for theoretical perspective
├── synthesis-memo.md                    # Synthesis and response strategy
└── [additional files]                   # Personas, revision logs, etc.

所有输出保存到稿件目录下的

peer-review-analysis/

文件夹中。

使用理论视角命名文件（而非个人姓名）：

peer-review-analysis/
├── review-disengagement-typology.md    # 以理论视角命名
├── review-emotions-movements.md         # 以理论视角命名
├── review-activist-careers.md           # 以理论视角命名
├── synthesis-memo.md                    # 汇总与回应策略
└── [其他文件]                   # 角色档案、修订日志等