Conduct structured manuscript reviews with section-by-section checklists and constructive feedback. Use when reviewing papers before submission, providing feedback to colleagues, or preparing reviewer responses.
Structured framework for reviewing academic manuscripts.
Before detailed review, form initial impressions:
| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Does title clearly convey the contribution? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Accuracy | Does title accurately reflect content? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Self-contained | Can abstract be understood alone? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Complete | Does abstract cover problem, method, results? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Concise | Is abstract appropriately brief (150-250 words)? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Motivation | Is the problem motivation clear and compelling? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Gap | Is the research gap clearly identified? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Contributions | Are contributions clearly stated? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Scope | Is the scope appropriate? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Organization | Is paper organization previewed? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Are relevant papers cited? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Organization | Is related work logically organized? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Positioning | Is this work positioned vs. prior work? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Fairness | Is prior work fairly characterized? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Recency | Are recent papers included? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Is the method clearly explained? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Reproducibility | Could someone reproduce this? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Justification | Are design choices justified? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Completeness | Are all components described? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Formalism | Is notation clear and consistent? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Setup | Is experimental setup complete? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Baselines | Are baselines appropriate and fair? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Datasets | Are datasets appropriate? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Metrics | Are metrics appropriate and justified? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Significance | Is statistical significance reported? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Analysis | Is there analysis beyond raw numbers? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Ablations | Are ablation studies included? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Limitations | Are limitations honestly discussed? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Implications | Are broader implications considered? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Future work | Is future work mentioned? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Summary | Does conclusion summarize key findings? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Criterion | Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Writing | Is the writing clear and grammatical? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Figures | Are figures clear and informative? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Tables | Are tables well-formatted? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Captions | Are captions self-contained? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
| Length | Is paper appropriate length? | [ ] Pass [ ] Needs work |
[2-3 sentences summarizing the paper's contribution]
[Issues that must be addressed for acceptance]
[Issues that would improve the paper but aren't critical]
[ ] Accept [ ] Minor revisions [ ] Major revisions [ ] Reject
[ ] High - I am an expert in this area [ ] Medium - I am familiar with this area [ ] Low - This is outside my expertise
| Instead of... | Try... |
|---|---|
| "This is wrong" | "I believe this may be incorrect because..." |
| "Poorly written" | "The writing could be clearer in section X" |
| "Missing citations" | "Consider citing [specific area/papers]" |
| "Not novel" | "The novelty over [prior work] isn't clear" |
| "Weak experiments" | "The experimental evaluation could be strengthened by..." |
Before finalizing review:
See references/ folder for:
review_checklist.md: Detailed checklist by paper type