Review Paper

Dimension 2: Identification & Causal Credibility

• What is the causal claim? Is it credible?
• Are the key identifying assumptions stated explicitly?
• What are the main threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, attrition)?
• Are robustness checks adequate and appropriate?
• Are pre-trends tests shown (for DID)? Fuzzy first-stage (for RDD/IV)?
• Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?

Dimension 3: Econometric Specification

• Are standard errors appropriate (clustered, heteroskedasticity-robust, bootstrap)?
• Is the functional form justified?
• Are effect sizes economically meaningful — not just statistically significant?
• Are there multiple testing concerns?
• Is the regression table complete (N, R-squared, fixed effects notation)?

Dimension 4: Literature Positioning

• Are seminal papers in this literature cited?
• Is prior work characterized accurately?
• Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
• Are there obvious missing citations a referee would flag?

Dimension 5: Writing Quality

• Is the abstract specific — does it state the main result with magnitude?
• Is the introduction self-contained (contribution clear without reading the whole paper)?
• Is notation consistent throughout?
• Are tables and figures self-contained (clear labels, units, source notes)?

Dimension 6: Data and Measurement

• Is the main outcome variable credibly operationalized?
• Is sample selection (inclusion/exclusion criteria) justified?
• Are descriptive statistics presented?
• Are data sources cited with access information?

3. Generate Referee Objections

Produce 3-5 specific fatal objections a hostile referee would raise:

• Attack the identification strategy first (this is where papers die)
• Challenge the economic/political significance of the effect size
• Identify the most glaring gap in the literature review
• Point to a missing heterogeneity analysis that would reveal mechanism
• Flag any inconsistency between the theory and the empirics

Output Format

# Referee Report: [Paper Title]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill
**Track:** [Economics / Political Science]
**Recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Minor R&R / Major R&R / Reject]

---

## Summary Assessment

[2-3 paragraphs: main contribution, key strengths, fatal concerns]

---

## Major Concerns

### MC1: [Short Title]
- **Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Literature / Writing / Data]
- **Issue:** [Specific description with section/table reference]
- **Why it matters:** [How this threatens the paper]
- **Suggested fix:** [Concrete action]

[Repeat for each major concern]

---

## Minor Concerns

### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [Description]
- **Fix:** [Action]

---

## Referee Objections (Top 3-5)

### RO1: [The Objection]
**Why this could cause rejection:** [Mechanism]
**How to address:** [Response strategy or additional analysis needed]

---

## Specific Comments

[Section-by-section or line-level comments if needed]

---

## Summary Scorecard

| Dimension | Rating (1-5) | Notes |
|-----------|-------------|-------|
| Argument Structure | [N] | |
| Identification | [N] | |
| Econometrics | [N] | |
| Literature | [N] | |
| Writing | [N] | |
| Data & Measurement | [N] | |
| **Overall** | **[N]** | |

Principles

• Every criticism must include a concrete suggested fix
• Reference exact sections, equations, tables — not vague descriptions
• Distinguish fatal flaws (would reject) from addressable concerns (R&R)
• Acknowledge what's done well — good research deserves recognition
• Do NOT fabricate details or citations — flag uncertainty explicitly
• Save the report to the session log or /plan folder