Back to Details

adversarial-peer-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Adversarial Peer Review

Adversarial Peer Review

Review as a serious top-venue reviewer: skeptical, specific, evidence-based, and fair. The goal is to find the objections that would block acceptance before external reviewers do.
作为严谨的顶级期刊评审员进行评审：持怀疑态度、具体、基于证据且公正。目标是在外部评审员发现之前找出会阻碍录用的问题。

Read First

必读内容

  • references/peer-review-policy.md
  • references/claim-audit.md
  • references/cs-methodology-evaluation-policy.md
  • references/peer-review-policy.md
  • references/claim-audit.md
  • references/cs-methodology-evaluation-policy.md

Workflow

工作流程

  1. Identify target venue or assumed review culture.
  2. Read the paper/proposal/manuscript claim-first: abstract, introduction, contributions, experiments, related work, conclusion.
  3. List acceptance-critical claims and what evidence supports each.
  4. Attack novelty, significance, correctness, methodology, clarity, ethics, and reproducibility.
  5. Separate fatal flaws, major weaknesses, minor issues, and presentation issues.
  6. Produce reviewer-style scores only when the user asks or the venue requires them.
  7. Save reusable findings in 
    reports/reviews/
    or 
    wiki/templates/reviewer-concern-page.md
    derived pages.
  1. 确定目标期刊或预设的评审文化。
  2. 以主张优先的方式阅读论文/提案/手稿：摘要、引言、贡献、实验、相关研究、结论。
  3. 列出对录用至关重要的主张以及支持每个主张的证据。
  4. 针对创新性、重要性、正确性、方法论、清晰度、伦理和可复现性提出质疑。
  5. 区分致命缺陷、主要弱点、次要问题和表述问题。
  6. 仅在用户要求或期刊要求时给出评审风格的分数。
  7. 将可复用的发现保存到
    reports/reviews/
    或衍生自
    wiki/templates/reviewer-concern-page.md
    的页面中。

Review Standard

评审标准

Every major criticism should include:
  • exact claim or section
  • why it matters
  • evidence from paper/source/run
  • what would fix or weaken the concern
每一项主要批评都应包含：
  • 确切的主张或章节
  • 其重要性原因
  • 来自论文/来源/实验的证据
  • 解决或弱化该问题的方法

Do Not

禁止事项

  • Be performatively harsh without evidence.
  • Suggest impossible experiments without labeling them as optional.
  • Let writing polish hide methodological weakness.
  • Accept citation volume as proof of related-work coverage.
  • 在没有证据的情况下故作苛刻。
  • 建议不可能实现的实验却不标注为可选。
  • 让写作的精致掩盖方法论上的弱点。
  • 将引用量作为相关研究覆盖全面的证明。