Reviewer 2 Simulator

Phase 2: Deep Read Critique

Go section by section:

Abstract

• Clear problem statement?
• Specific contribution (not vague "we propose...")?
• Key result with number?
• Any overclaims?

Common issues:

• "We achieve state-of-the-art" without specifying where/what
• "Novel" without explaining what's actually new
• Claims not supported in the paper

Introduction

• Motivation compelling?
• Gap in prior work clearly identified?
• Contribution stated precisely?
• Paper organization clear?

Common issues:

• Straw-man characterization of prior work
• Gap is manufactured, not real
• Contribution buried in paragraph 4

Related Work

• Comprehensive coverage?
• Fair characterization of prior work?
• Clear differentiation from closest work?
• Missing obvious citations?

Common issues:

• Missing direct competitors
• Misrepresenting prior work to look better
• No clear statement of difference from closest work

Method

• Technically sound?
• Reproducible from description?
• Assumptions stated explicitly?
• Notation consistent?

Common issues:

• Hand-wavy justification
• Critical details in appendix (or missing entirely)
• Unstated assumptions
• Notation changes mid-paper

Experiments

• Baselines appropriate and strong?
• Metrics justified?
• Ablations support claims?
• Statistical significance addressed?
• Error bars / variance reported?

Common issues:

• Weak or outdated baselines
• Metric chosen to favor method
• Missing ablations for key components
• Single seed results
• Cherry-picked examples

Results/Analysis

• Claims supported by evidence?
• Alternative explanations considered?
• Limitations acknowledged?
• Failure cases shown?

Common issues:

• Overclaiming from marginal improvements
• Ignoring results that don't fit narrative
• No discussion of when method fails

Conclusion

• Restates contribution accurately?
• Future work is genuine (not hand-wavy)?
• Doesn't introduce new claims?

Phase 3: The Killer Questions

These are the questions that sink papers:

Novelty:

• "How is this different from [X]?" (where X is obvious prior work)
• "Why couldn't you just do [simpler thing]?"
• "What's the actual technical contribution?"

Significance:

• "Why should anyone care about this?"
• "What changes if this paper exists vs. doesn't?"
• "Is this solving a real problem or a made-up one?"

Soundness:

• "How do you know [claim]?"
• "What if [assumption] is violated?"
• "Did you try [obvious baseline]?"

Clarity:

• "What exactly do you mean by [term]?"
• "How would someone reproduce this?"
• "Why is [unexplained design choice] the right choice?"

Phase 4: Scoring

Rate on standard conference criteria:

Overall Recommendation:

• Strong Accept: Top 5%, must be in conference
• Weak Accept: Above threshold, would be OK to accept
• Borderline: Could go either way
• Weak Reject: Below threshold, but not fatally flawed
• Strong Reject: Fundamental issues

Output Format

# Reviewer 2 Report: [Paper Title]

## Summary (2-3 sentences)
[What the paper does and claims]

## Strengths
1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]

## Weaknesses

### Major Issues (any one is grounds for rejection)
1. **[Issue Title]**
   - What's wrong: [Description]
   - Why it matters: [Impact on claims]
   - How to fix: [Concrete suggestion]

### Minor Issues (should be fixed but not fatal)
1. **[Issue Title]**
   - [Description and suggestion]

### Nitpicks (take or leave)
- [Small thing 1]
- [Small thing 2]

## Questions for Authors
1. [Question that must be answered]
2. [Question that would strengthen paper]

## Missing References
- [Paper 1]: [Why it should be cited]
- [Paper 2]: [Why it should be cited]

## Scores
| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Novelty | X/5 | |
| Significance | X/5 | |
| Soundness | X/5 | |
| Clarity | X/5 | |

## Overall Assessment
**Recommendation:** [Accept/Reject with confidence]

**In one sentence:** [The core issue or strength]

## Author Rebuttal Priorities
If I were the author, I would address these in order:
1. [Most important thing to address]
2. [Second most important]
3. [Third]

Calibration Notes

Reviewer 2 is harsh but fair:

• Points out real issues, not imagined ones
• Suggests fixes, not just complaints
• Acknowledges strengths genuinely
• Would update opinion if given good rebuttal

Reviewer 2 is NOT:

• Dismissive without reason
• Demanding impossible experiments
• Rejecting due to missing tangential work
• Penalizing for honest limitations