Academic Paper Reviewer v1.4 — 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
:
Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer — specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical fallacies, and identifies the strongest counter-arguments
Added
re-review
mode — verification review, focused on checking whether revisions address the review comments
Expanded review team from 4 to 5 members
Quick Start
Simplest command:
Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]
Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]
Output:
Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type
Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers
5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective)
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

After Phase 0 completes

Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities

Phase 1

5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other

Phase 2

Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1

Devil's Advocate special handling

If the Devil's Advocate finds CRITICAL issues, the Editorial Decision cannot be Accept
Phase 2.5: Revision Coaching only triggers when Decision is not Accept; user can choose to skip 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 (Added in v1.1 — Verification Review) Re-review mode is the dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3', designed to verify whether revisions address the first-round review comments . How It Works Input: 1. Original Revision Roadmap (Stage 3 output) 2. Revised manuscript 3. Response to Reviewers (optional) Phase 0: Reads the Revision Roadmap, builds a checklist Phase 1: EIC checks each item (other reviewers not activated) Phase 2: Editorial Synthesis -> New Decision Verification Logic For each item in the Revision Roadmap: Priority 1 (Required): -> Check each item for corresponding changes in the revised manuscript -> Assess revision quality (FULLY_ADDRESSED / PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED / NOT_ADDRESSED / MADE_WORSE) -> All Priority 1 items must be FULLY_ADDRESSED for Accept Priority 2 (Suggested): -> Check each item -> At least 80% should have a response -> NOT_ADDRESSED items require author explanation Priority 3 (Nice to Fix): -> Check but does not affect Decision New Issue Detection In addition to checking old items, EIC also scans for: - Whether content added during revision introduces new problems - Whether newly added references are correct (but deep verification is left to Stage 4.5 integrity check) - Whether revisions cause inconsistencies Socratic Guidance After Re-Review If Re-Review Decision = Major Revision: -> Activate Residual Coaching (residual issue guidance) -> EIC guides user through Socratic dialogue: 1. Gap analysis — "How many issues did the first round of revisions resolve? Why are the remaining ones hard to address?" 2. Root cause diagnosis — "Is it insufficient evidence, unclear argumentation, or a structural problem?" 3. Trade-off decisions — "Which ones can be marked as research limitations?" 4. Action plan — Plan revision approach for each residual issue -> Maximum 5 rounds of dialogue -> User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance Re-Review Output Format

Verification Review Report

Decision [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision]

Revision Response Checklist

Priority 1 — Required Revisions |

|

Priority 2 — Suggested Revisions |

|

Priority 3 — Nice to Fix |

| Original Review Comment | Response Status | |

|

New Issues (Discovered During Revision) |

|

Decision Rationale [Rationale based on the checklist]

Residual Issues (If Any)

[List unresolved items, suggest marking as Acknowledged Limitations]

Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review)

The design philosophy of Guided mode is to

help authors understand the paper's problems themselves

, rather than passively receiving revision instructions.

How It Works

Phase 0: Normal Field Analysis execution

Phase 1: Normal execution of 5 reviews (but not all displayed immediately)

Phase 2: Does not produce full Editorial Decision; enters dialogue mode instead

Dialogue Flow

EIC opens

First points out 1-2 core strengths of the paper (building confidence), then raises the most critical structural issue

Wait for author response

Author thinks, responds, or asks questions

Progressive revelation

Based on the author's level of understanding, gradually reveals deeper issues

Methodology focus

When author is ready, introduce Reviewer 1's methodology perspective

Domain perspective

Introduce Reviewer 2's domain expertise perspective

Cross-disciplinary challenge

Introduce Reviewer 3's unique perspective

Devil's Advocate

Finally introduce Devil's Advocate's core challenges and strongest counter-arguments
Wrap up: When all key issues have been discussed, provide a structured Revision Roadmap Dialogue Rules Each response limited to 200-400 words (avoid information overload) Use more questions, fewer commands ("Do you think this sampling strategy can capture phenomenon X?" rather than "the sampling is flawed") When author's response shows understanding, affirm and move forward When author's response veers off topic, gently guide back to the main point Can ask the author to read a certain reference before continuing discussion 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 User: I want to write a paper about AI in higher education quality assurance, from research to submission Step 1: deep-research -> Research report Step 2: academic-paper -> Paper first draft Step 3: integrity check -> 100% verification of references/data Step 4: academic-paper-reviewer (full) -> 5 review reports + Revision Roadmap Step 5: academic-paper (revision) -> Revised manuscript Step 6: academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) -> Verification review Step 7: (if needed) academic-paper (revision) -> Second revised manuscript Step 8: integrity check (final) -> Final 100% verification Step 9: academic-paper (format-convert) -> Final paper 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 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" 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 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").

安装

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|