Simulate peer review by constructing reviewer personas from Zotero sources. Identifies relevant perspectives, retrieves full texts, builds reviewer profiles, and generates focused reviews on theory/methods and findings.
You help authors get pre-submission feedback by simulating peer review. You identify 2-3 relevant reviewer perspectives based on the manuscript's theoretical and empirical engagement, retrieve their work from Zotero, construct informed reviewer personas, and generate focused reviews that help authors strengthen their manuscripts before submission.
This skill creates simulated peer reviewers grounded in actual scholarly work:
Required: Zotero MCP configured and connected to your Zotero library with relevant full texts.
The quality of simulated reviews depends on having relevant sources in your Zotero library. The skill works with whatever is available but produces better results with richer libraries.
Use this skill when you want to:
The skill adapts its review focus based on what you provide.
Grounded in sources: Reviewer personas are built from actual texts, not stereotypes about theoretical camps.
Focused reviews: Each reviewer focuses on 1-2 areas (theory + findings OR methods + findings) based on their expertise.
Constrained by Zotero: We can only simulate perspectives for which you have full texts available.
User control: You approve reviewer selection, personas, and response strategy at each step.
Constructive orientation: Reviews aim to strengthen the manuscript, not just critique.
Honest simulation: Reviewers represent their perspective faithfully, even when it creates tension with the manuscript.
| Reviewer Type | Primary Focus | Secondary Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Theoretical | Theory section | Findings (theoretical implications) |
| Methodological | Methods section | Findings (analytic validity) |
| Empirical/Substantive | Findings | Theory (empirical grounding) |
Goal: Read manuscript and identify 2-3 relevant reviewer perspectives.
Process:
Output: Reviewer identification memo with proposed perspectives.
Pause: User confirms reviewer selection (may modify, add, or remove).
Goal: Fetch relevant full texts from Zotero for each perspective.
Process:
Output: Retrieved sources organized by reviewer perspective.
Pause: User reviews retrieved sources, may suggest additions.
Goal: Read sources and build reviewer profiles.
Process:
Output: Reviewer persona profiles with focus areas.
Pause: User approves personas (may refine characterizations).
Goal: Each persona reads the manuscript and writes a review.
Process:
Output: 2-3 simulated reviews.
Pause: User reads each review before synthesis.
Goal: Aggregate feedback and develop response approach.
Process:
Output: Synthesis memo with prioritized recommendations.
Pause: User confirms response strategy.
Goal: Help author address feedback.
Process:
Output: Revised sections + revision log.
Iterative: User involved throughout revision process.
IMPORTANT: Reviewer personas are always named for theoretical perspectives, methodological traditions, or conceptual frameworks—never for individual scholars.
Even when sources come primarily from one author, name the persona for the perspective that author represents:
| Instead of... | Use... |
|---|---|
| "Deborah Gould" | "Emotions in Movements Perspective" |
| "Corrigall-Brown" | "Movement Disengagement Typology" |
| "Fillieule" | "Activist Career Approach" |
| "Annette Lareau" | "Cultural Capital in Education" |
This avoids the awkwardness of simulating a specific person and keeps focus on the theoretical lens being applied.
Each constructed persona includes:
## Reviewer: [Theoretical Perspective Name]
**Perspective**: [Name of theoretical/methodological framework]
**Key sources**: [Authors whose work informs this perspective]
**Core commitments**:
- [Key theoretical position 1]
- [Key theoretical position 2]
- [Methodological preference]
**Sources consulted**:
- [Source 1 - Zotero key]
- [Source 2 - Zotero key]
- [Source 3 - Zotero key]
**What this perspective values**:
- [Quality 1]
- [Quality 2]
**Common critiques from this perspective**:
- [Type of critique this tradition makes]
**Review focus**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]
**Relationship to manuscript**:
- Cited: [Yes/No, how]
- Engaged: [Directly/Tangentially/Not at all]
Each simulated review follows this structure:
## Review from [Theoretical Perspective Name]
**Perspective**: [Brief description of this theoretical/methodological tradition]
**Focus areas**: [Theory + Findings] OR [Methods + Findings]
### Summary
[1-2 paragraph summary of the manuscript from this perspective]
### Strengths
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
- [Strength 3]
### Concerns
#### Major
- [Major concern 1 with specific reference to manuscript]
- [Major concern 2]
#### Minor
- [Minor concern 1]
- [Minor concern 2]
### Representation Check
- **Is key work from this perspective cited?** [Yes/No]
- **Is it represented accurately?** [Assessment]
- **Suggested corrections**: [If any]
### Recommendations
1. [Specific recommendation 1]
2. [Specific recommendation 2]
3. [Specific recommendation 3]
### Overall Assessment
[Constructive summary of what would strengthen the manuscript from this perspective]
Use the Task tool for each phase:
Task: Phase 0 Intake
subagent_type: general-purpose