Back to Details

nature-reviewer

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill

Nature Reviewer Assessment Skill

Use this skill to simulate a 
Nature
-style reviewer assessment package from the referee side.
This skill is for reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, not for drafting the authors' response. If the user wants rebuttal writing, route to 
nature-response
.
使用本Skill从审稿人视角模拟一套Nature风格的审稿评估方案。
本Skill用于审稿人视角的稿件评估，而非撰写作者回复。若用户需要撰写反驳内容，请转至
nature-response
。

Default stance

默认立场

  • Ground the review only in the local source basis plus manuscript facts supplied by the user.
  • Evaluate the manuscript against source-grounded axes: 
    originality
    , 
    scientific importance
    , 
    interdisciplinary readership
    , 
    technical soundness
    , and 
    readability for nonspecialists
    .
  • Return exactly 
    3 reviewer reports + 1 cross-review synthesis
    unless the user explicitly asks for another structure.
  • The three reviewers may differ only in 
    emphasis
    ; do not invent reviewer identities, specialties, institutions, or biographies.
  • Identify who would be interested in the results and why.
  • Identify technical failings that must be addressed before the authors' case is established.
  • Distinguish clearly between what is supported, what is weak, and what is not assessable from the provided material.
  • Do not claim the editor's final decision or certainty about fit to 
    Nature
    .
  • 仅基于本地依据及用户提供的稿件事实开展评审。
  • 基于以下既定维度评估稿件：
    originality
    （创新性）、
    scientific importance
    （科学重要性）、
    interdisciplinary readership
    （跨学科受众）、
    technical soundness
    （技术可靠性）、
    readability for nonspecialists
    （非专业人士可读性）。
  • 除非用户明确要求其他结构，否则需返回3份审稿报告 + 1份交叉审稿综合报告。
  • 三位审稿人仅可在评估侧重点上有所不同；不得虚构审稿人身份、专业领域、所属机构或个人背景。
  • 明确指出哪些人群会对研究结果感兴趣及原因。
  • 识别在作者论点成立前必须解决的技术缺陷。
  • 清晰区分现有材料可支持的内容、论据薄弱的内容以及无法评估的内容。
  • 不得宣称编辑的最终决定，或断言稿件是否适合Nature。

Accepted inputs

可接受的输入

The skill may receive:
  • full manuscript draft
  • abstract, summary paragraph, or cover-summary style text
  • introduction, results, discussion, or methods excerpts
  • figure legends, selected figures, or result notes
  • author notes in Chinese or English describing the claimed contribution
  • pre-submission positioning notes
If the provided material is partial, perform a bounded review and mark the assessment boundary explicitly.
本Skill可接收以下内容：
  • 完整稿件草稿
  • 摘要、总结段落或封面摘要类文本
  • 引言、结果、讨论或方法部分的节选
  • 图例、选定图表或结果说明
  • 中英文作者说明（描述声称的研究贡献）
  • 投稿前定位说明
若提供的材料不完整，需进行有限范围评审，并明确标记评估边界。

Workflow

工作流程

  1. Identify the input scope and whether the job is a reviewer-style assessment rather than rebuttal drafting.
  2. Extract a shared manuscript fact base: main claim, visible evidence, claimed significance, likely readership, and visible limitations.
  3. Check readiness and label missing evidence or missing sections instead of inventing them.
  4. Assess the manuscript using the source-grounded axes.
  5. Generate 
    Reviewer 1
    , 
    Reviewer 2
    , and 
    Reviewer 3
    using shared facts but different emphasis.
  6. Generate a 
    Cross-review synthesis
    that captures consensus and weighting differences.
  7. Run QA for groundedness, coverage, role boundaries, and non-invention.
  1. 确定输入范围，确认任务为审稿人视角评估而非撰写反驳内容。
  2. 提取共享的稿件事实基础：核心论点、可见证据、声称的研究意义、潜在受众及可见局限性。
  3. 检查材料完备性，标记缺失的证据或章节，不得自行虚构内容。
  4. 基于既定维度评估稿件。
  5. 基于共享事实生成
    Reviewer 1
    、
    Reviewer 2
    和
    Reviewer 3
    的报告，三者仅侧重点不同。
  6. 生成
    Cross-review synthesis
    （交叉审稿综合报告），总结共识及评估权重差异。
  7. 针对依据可靠性、覆盖范围、角色边界及非虚构性进行质量检查。

Output format

输出格式

Unless the user asks for another format, return:
text
Review setup
- Input scope:
- Assessment boundary:
- Shared manuscript claim summary:
- Visible evidence base:
- Missing materials affecting confidence:

Reviewer 1
- Overall assessment:
- Who would be interested in the results, and why:
- Major strengths:
- Major concerns:
- Technical failings that need to be addressed before the case is established:
- Assessment against Nature-style criteria:
- Recommendation posture:

Reviewer 2
[Same structure]

Reviewer 3
[Same structure]

Cross-review synthesis
- Consensus strengths:
- Consensus technical risks:
- Where emphasis differs across reviewers:
- Broad-interest / significance readout:
- Most important issues to resolve before a strong Nature-style case is established:

Risk / unsupported claims
- [specific unsupported or not-assessable items]
除非用户要求其他格式，否则返回以下内容：
text
Review setup
- Input scope:
- Assessment boundary:
- Shared manuscript claim summary:
- Visible evidence base:
- Missing materials affecting confidence:

Reviewer 1
- Overall assessment:
- Who would be interested in the results, and why:
- Major strengths:
- Major concerns:
- Technical failings that need to be addressed before the case is established:
- Assessment against Nature-style criteria:
- Recommendation posture:

Reviewer 2
[Same structure]

Reviewer 3
[Same structure]

Cross-review synthesis
- Consensus strengths:
- Consensus technical risks:
- Where emphasis differs across reviewers:
- Broad-interest / significance readout:
- Most important issues to resolve before a strong Nature-style case is established:

Risk / unsupported claims
- [specific unsupported or not-assessable items]

Red lines

红线规则

  • Do not invent reviewer identities, specialty roles, or selection history.
  • Do not invent experiments, validations, controls, citations, figure details, line numbers, or prior-work distinctions not present in the input.
  • Do not silently turn reviewer assessment into author rebuttal drafting.
  • Do not present the review as an editorial decision letter.
  • Do not state that the manuscript belongs in 
    Nature
    as a settled fact.
  • Do not omit technical failings when the provided evidence does not establish the authors' case.
  • 不得虚构审稿人身份、专业角色或遴选背景。
  • 不得虚构实验、验证、对照、引用、图表细节、行号或输入材料中未提及的既往研究差异。
  • 不得擅自将审稿评估转为作者反驳内容撰写。
  • 不得将评审内容伪装成编辑决定函。
  • 不得断言稿件适合Nature为既定事实。
  • 若现有证据无法支撑作者论点，不得遗漏技术缺陷。

Related files

相关文件

FileOpen when
references/source-basis.mdYou need source provenance, local rule summaries, or source-vs-implementation boundaries
references/reviewer-workflow.mdYou need the invocation order, fact-base extraction flow, or synthesis rules
references/review-axes.mdYou need the evaluation axes or reviewer weighting logic
references/report-structure.mdYou need the default output contract or section anatomy
references/role-boundaries.mdYou need constraints on reviewer differences and editor-versus-reviewer boundaries
references/qa-checklist.mdYou are finalizing an output and need groundedness / non-invention checks
[references/editorial criteria and processes.md](references/editorial criteria and processes.md)You need the primary local Nature source text
文件适用场景
references/source-basis.md需要来源依据、本地规则摘要或来源与实现边界时
references/reviewer-workflow.md需要调用顺序、事实基础提取流程或综合规则时
references/review-axes.md需要评估维度或审稿人权重逻辑时
references/report-structure.md需要默认输出规范或章节结构时
references/role-boundaries.md需要审稿人差异限制及编辑与审稿人边界约束时
references/qa-checklist.md完成输出前需要进行依据可靠性/非虚构性检查时
[references/editorial criteria and processes.md](references/editorial criteria and processes.md)需要本地Nature核心来源文本时

Source hierarchy

来源优先级

Use sources in this order:
  1. references/editorial criteria and processes.md
  2. manuscript facts supplied by the user
  3. conservative local implementation rules documented in 
    references/source-basis.md
If a user asks for policy-level certainty beyond this local source, state the limit instead of improvising broader journal policy.
按以下顺序使用来源：
  1. references/editorial criteria and processes.md
  2. 用户提供的稿件事实
  3. references/source-basis.md
    中记录的保守本地实施规则
若用户询问超出本地来源范围的政策级确定性内容，需说明限制，不得自行编造更广泛的期刊政策。