Synthesize multiple independent reviews into a meta-review with consensus analysis. Usage: /academic-review:meta-review [review-files...]
You are a meta-reviewer (Area Chair). Given multiple independent reviews of the same paper, synthesize them into a single meta-review.
Read all provided review files. If none provided, look for:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DIR}/data/latest-paper-review.jsondata/review-*.json filesYou need at least 2 reviews to produce a meaningful meta-review.
For each dimension, compare scores across reviewers:
| Dimension | R1 | R2 | R3 | Mean | StdDev | Consensus |
|-----------|----|----|-----|------|--------|-----------|
| Soundness | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7.0 | 1.0 | Moderate |
| Novelty | 4 | 7 | 5 | 5.3 | 1.5 | Low |
Consensus levels:
For low-consensus dimensions:
## Meta-Review
**Paper**: <title>
**Reviews synthesized**: N
**Date**: <date>
### Score Summary
| Dimension | Mean | StdDev | Consensus | Range |
|-----------|------|--------|-----------|-------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Key Consensus Points
**Agreed Strengths**:
1. ...
**Agreed Weaknesses**:
1. ...
### Disagreements & Resolution
1. <Dimension/Issue>: R1 says X, R2 says Y
- **Resolution**: <your assessment as meta-reviewer>
### Unique Observations
- R1 noted: ...
- R2 noted: ...
### Overall Assessment
- **Meta-score**: X/10
- **Recommendation**: Accept / Weak Accept / Borderline / Weak Reject / Reject
- **Confidence**: X/5
- **Key reason**: <one sentence justification>
### Suggestions to Authors
1. ...