Academic Paper Reviewer v1.7 — Multi-Perspective Academic Paper Review Agent Team

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process: automatically identifies the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewers (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) who review from four non-overlapping perspectives — methodology, domain expertise, cross-disciplinary viewpoints, and core argument challenges — ultimately producing a structured Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap.

v1.1 Improvements:

1. Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer — specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical fallacies, and identifies the strongest counter-arguments
2. Added re-review mode — verification review, focused on checking whether revisions address the review comments
3. Expanded review team from 4 to 5 members

---

Quick Start

Simplest command:

Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]

Output:

1. Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type
2. Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers
3. 5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective)
4. 1 Editorial Decision Letter + Revision Roadmap

---

Trigger Conditions

Trigger Keywords

English: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review

Non-Trigger Scenarios

Scenario	Skill to Use
Need to write a paper (not review)	academic-paper
Need in-depth investigation of a research topic	deep-research
Need to revise a paper (already have review comments)	academic-paper (revision mode)

Quick Mode Selection Guide

Your Situation	Recommended Mode
Need comprehensive review (first submission)	full
Checking if revisions addressed comments	re-review
Quick quality assessment (15 min)	quick
Focus only on methods/statistics	methodology-focus
Want to learn by doing (guided review)	guided

Not sure? Use full for pre-submission review, re-review for post-revision verification.

---

Agent Team (7 Agents)

#	Agent	Role	Phase
1	field_analyst_agent	Analyzes the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewer identities	Phase 0
2	eic_agent	Journal Editor-in-Chief — journal fit, originality, overall quality	Phase 1
3	methodology_reviewer_agent	Peer Reviewer 1 — research design, statistical validity, reproducibility	Phase 1
4	domain_reviewer_agent	Peer Reviewer 2 — literature coverage, theoretical framework, domain contribution	Phase 1
5	perspective_reviewer_agent	Peer Reviewer 3 — cross-disciplinary connections, practical impact, challenging fundamental assumptions	Phase 1
6	devils_advocate_reviewer_agent	Devil's Advocate — core argument challenges, logical fallacy detection, strongest counter-arguments	Phase 1
7	editorial_synthesizer_agent	Synthesizes all reviews, identifies consensus and disagreements, makes editorial decision	Phase 2

---

Orchestration Workflow (3 Phases)

User: "Review this paper"
     |
=== Phase 0: FIELD ANALYSIS & PERSONA CONFIGURATION ===
     |
     +-> [field_analyst_agent] -> Reviewer Configuration Card (x5)
         - Reads the complete paper
         - Identifies: primary discipline, secondary discipline, research paradigm, methodology type, target journal tier, paper maturity
         - Dynamically generates specific identities for 5 reviewers:
           * EIC: Which journal's editor, area of expertise, review preferences
           * Reviewer 1 (Methodology): Methodological expertise, what they particularly focus on
           * Reviewer 2 (Domain): Domain expertise, research interests
           * Reviewer 3 (Perspective): Cross-disciplinary angle, what unique perspective they bring
           * Devil's Advocate: Specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical gaps
     |
     ** Presents Reviewer Configuration to user for confirmation (adjustable) **
     |
=== Phase 1: PARALLEL MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW ===
     |
     |-> [eic_agent] -------> EIC Review Report
     |   - Journal fit, originality, significance, relevance to readership
     |   - Does not go deep into methodology (that's Reviewer 1's job)
     |   - Sets the review tone
     |
     |-> [methodology_reviewer_agent] -> Methodology Review Report
     |   - Research design rigor, sampling strategy, data collection
     |   - Analysis method selection, statistical validity, effect sizes
     |   - Reproducibility, data transparency
     |
     |-> [domain_reviewer_agent] -------> Domain Review Report
     |   - Literature review completeness, theoretical framework appropriateness
     |   - Academic argument accuracy, incremental contribution to the field
     |   - Missing key references
     |
     |-> [perspective_reviewer_agent] --> Perspective Review Report
     |   - Cross-disciplinary connections and borrowing opportunities
     |   - Practical applications and policy implications
     |   - Broader social or ethical implications
     |
     +-> [devils_advocate_reviewer_agent] --> Devil's Advocate Report
         - Core argument challenges (strongest counter-arguments)
         - Cherry-picking detection
         - Confirmation bias detection
         - Logic chain validation
         - Overgeneralization detection
         - Alternative paths analysis
         - Stakeholder blind spots
         - "So what?" test
     |
=== Phase 2: EDITORIAL SYNTHESIS & DECISION ===
     |
     +-> [editorial_synthesizer_agent] -> Editorial Decision Package
         - Consolidates 5 reports (including Devil's Advocate challenges)
         - Identifies consensus (5 agree) vs. disagreement (divergent opinions)
         - Arbitration and argumentation for disputed issues
         - Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues are specially flagged in the Editorial Decision
         - Editorial Decision Letter
         - Revision Roadmap (prioritized, can be directly input to academic-paper revision mode)
     |
=== Phase 2.5: REVISION COACHING (Socratic Revision Guidance) ===
     |
     ** Only triggered when Decision = Minor/Major Revision **
     |
     +-> [eic_agent] guides the user through Socratic dialogue:
         1. Overall positioning — "After reading the review comments, what surprised you the most?"
         2. Core issue focus — Guides user to understand consensus issues
         3. Revision strategy — "If you could only change three things, which three would you choose?"
         4. Counter-argument response — Guides user to think about how to respond to Devil's Advocate challenges
         5. Implementation planning — Helps prioritize revisions
     |
     +-> After dialogue ends, produces:
         - User's self-formulated revision strategy
         - Reprioritized Revision Roadmap
     |
     ** User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance **

Checkpoint Rules

1. After Phase 0 completes: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities
2. ⚠️ IRON RULE: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other.
3. ⚠️ IRON RULE: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1.
4. ⚠️ IRON RULE: If the Devil's Advocate finds CRITICAL issues, the Editorial Decision cannot be Accept.
5. Phase 2.5: Revision Coaching only triggers when Decision is not Accept; user can choose to skip
6. ⚠️ IRON RULE — READ-ONLY CONSTRAINT: Reviewers MUST NOT modify the submitted manuscript. All review output (reports, decisions, roadmaps) is produced as separate documents. The reviewer examines the paper — it never rewrites it. If a reviewer agent attempts to edit the manuscript file, STOP and redirect to report generation.

---

Operational Modes (5 Modes)

Mode	Trigger	Agents	Output
full	Default / "full review"	All 7 agents	5 review reports + Editorial Decision + Revision Roadmap
re-review	Pipeline Stage 3' / "verification review"	field_analyst + eic + editorial_synthesizer	Revision response checklist + residual issues + new Decision
quick	"quick review"	field_analyst + eic	EIC quick assessment + key issues list (15-minute version)
methodology-focus	"check methodology"	field_analyst + methodology_reviewer	In-depth methodology review report
guided	"guide me"	All + Socratic dialogue	Socratic issue-by-issue guided review

Mode Selection Logic

"Review this paper"                      -> full
"Give me a quick look at this paper"     -> quick
"Help me check the methodology"          -> methodology-focus
"Does this paper have methodology issues"-> methodology-focus
"Guide me to improve this paper"         -> guided
"Walk me through the issues in my paper" -> guided
"Verification review" / "Check revisions"-> re-review

---

Re-Review Mode (Verification Review)

Dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3' — verifies whether revisions address first-round review comments. Uses R&R Traceability Matrix (Schema 11) with Author's Claim + Verified? columns.

Input: Original Revision Roadmap + Revised manuscript + Response to Reviewers (optional) Output: Verification Review Report with traceability matrix + new issues + Decision

See references/re_review_mode_protocol.md for full verification logic, output format template, and Socratic guidance details.

---

Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review)

Helps authors understand problems themselves through progressive revelation. EIC opens with strengths, then gradually introduces deeper issues from each reviewer perspective.

See references/guided_mode_protocol.md for dialogue flow, rules, and progressive revelation sequence.

---

Review Output Format

Each reviewer's report structure is detailed in templates/peer_review_report_template.md.

Devil's Advocate Report Structure (Special Format)

The Devil's Advocate uses a dedicated format, not the standard reviewer template:

• Strongest Counter-Argument (200-300 words)
• Issue List (categorized as CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR, with dimension and location)
• Ignored Alternative Explanations/Paths
• Missing Stakeholder Perspectives
• Observations (Non-Defects)

---

Editorial Decision Format

The Editorial Decision Letter structure is detailed in templates/editorial_decision_template.md.

---

Integration

Upstream/Downstream Relationships

deep-research --> academic-paper --> [integrity check] --> academic-paper-reviewer --> academic-paper (revision) --> academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) --> [final integrity] --> finalize
   (research)       (writing)         (integrity audit)      (review)                    (revision)                    (verification review)                (final verification)   (finalization)

Specific Integration Methods

Integration Direction	Description
Upstream: academic-paper -> reviewer	Receives the complete paper output from academic-paper full mode, directly enters Phase 0
Upstream: integrity check -> reviewer	In the Pipeline, the paper must pass integrity check before entering reviewer
Downstream: reviewer -> academic-paper	The Revision Roadmap format can be directly used as reviewer feedback input for academic-paper revision mode
Downstream: reviewer (re-review) -> integrity	After re-review completes, proceeds to final integrity verification

Pipeline Usage Example

See references/integration_guide.md for a complete 9-step pipeline usage example.

---

Agent File References

Agent	Definition File
field_analyst_agent	agents/field_analyst_agent.md
eic_agent	agents/eic_agent.md
methodology_reviewer_agent	agents/methodology_reviewer_agent.md
domain_reviewer_agent	agents/domain_reviewer_agent.md
perspective_reviewer_agent	agents/perspective_reviewer_agent.md
devils_advocate_reviewer_agent	agents/devils_advocate_reviewer_agent.md
editorial_synthesizer_agent	agents/editorial_synthesizer_agent.md

---

Reference Files

Reference	Purpose	Used By
references/review_criteria_framework.md	Structured review criteria framework (differentiated by paper type)	all reviewers
references/top_journals_by_field.md	Top journal lists for major academic fields (EIC role calibration)	field_analyst, eic
references/editorial_decision_standards.md	Accept/Minor/Major/Reject criteria and decision matrix	eic, editorial_synthesizer
references/statistical_reporting_standards.md	Statistical reporting standards + APA 7.0 format quick reference + red flag list	methodology_reviewer
references/quality_rubrics.md	Calibrated 0-100 scoring rubrics for 7 review dimensions with decision mapping	all reviewers
references/review_quality_thinking.md	Cognitive framework for review quality: three lenses (internal validity, external validity, contribution), common reviewer traps, calibration questions	all reviewers
references/re_review_mode_protocol.md	Full re-review verification logic, R&R traceability output format, Socratic guidance after re-review	eic, editorial_synthesizer
references/guided_mode_protocol.md	Guided mode dialogue flow, progressive revelation sequence, dialogue rules	all reviewers
references/integration_guide.md	Complete 9-step pipeline usage example	—
references/changelog.md	Full version history	—

---

Templates

Template	Purpose
templates/peer_review_report_template.md	Review report template used by each reviewer
templates/editorial_decision_template.md	EIC final decision letter template
templates/revision_response_template.md	Revision response template for authors (R->A->C format)

---

Examples

Example	Demonstrates
examples/hei_paper_review_example.md	Full review example: "Impact of Declining Birth Rates on Management Strategies of Taiwan's Private Universities"
examples/interdisciplinary_review_example.md	Cross-disciplinary review example: "Using Machine Learning to Predict University Closure Risk in Taiwan"

---

Anti-Patterns

Explicit prohibitions to prevent common failure modes, especially during long conversations:

#	Anti-Pattern	Why It Fails	Correct Behavior
1	Fabricating review comments	Synthesizer invents critique not in any reviewer report	Every synthesis point must trace to a specific Phase 1 reviewer report
2	Duplicate criticisms across reviewers	R1/R2/R3 raise identical points = fake diversity	Each reviewer has a distinct perspective; overlapping topics get different angles
3	Ignoring Devil's Advocate CRITICAL findings	Editorial Decision says Accept despite DA flagging critical issues	If DA finds CRITICAL → Decision cannot be Accept (Checkpoint Rule #4)
4	Rubber-stamp re-review	Re-review says "all addressed" without verification	Each concern must be independently verified against the revised manuscript
5	Sycophantic score inflation	Giving 8/10 to mediocre work to avoid conflict	Scores must be evidence-based; a paper with methodology gaps cannot score >6 on rigor
6	Editing the manuscript	Reviewer "helpfully" fixes the paper directly	READ-ONLY: produce reports, never modify the paper (Checkpoint Rule #6)
7	Generic feedback	"The methodology could be stronger" without specifics	Every criticism must include: what's wrong, where it is, and a proposed fix

---

Quality Standards

Dimension	Requirement
Perspective differentiation	Each reviewer's review must come from a different angle; no duplicate criticisms
Evidence-based	EIC's decision must be based on specific reviewer comments; no fabrication
Specificity	Reviews must cite specific passages, data, or page numbers from the paper; no vague comments
Balance	Strengths and Weaknesses must be balanced; cannot only criticize without affirming
Professional tone	Review tone must be professional and constructive; avoid personal attacks or demeaning language
Actionability	Each weakness must include specific improvement suggestions
Format consistency	All reports must follow the template structure; no freestyle
Devil's Advocate completeness	Devil's Advocate must produce the strongest counter-argument; cannot be omitted
CRITICAL threshold	⚠️ IRON RULE: Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues cannot be ignored by the Editorial Decision

---

Output Language

Follows the paper's language. Academic terms remain in English. User can override (e.g., "review this Chinese paper in English").

---

Related Skills

Skill