Peer Review

• Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts submitted to journals, including original research articles, reviews, meta-analyses, and methods papers.
• Evaluating grant proposals and research applications for methodological rigor, experimental design, and statistical soundness.
• Checking compliance with discipline-specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE, or MIAME.
• Reviewing scientific presentations (slide decks) for visual formatting, content quality, structure, and scientific accuracy.

• If your goal is to evaluate the quality of evidence or claims in existing literature rather than write a formal review — use the scientific-critical-thinking skill instead.
• If you need a quantitative scoring framework for ranking or comparing manuscripts — use the scholar-evaluation skill instead.

Guides the reviewer through a sequential process: initial assessment, section-by-section analysis, methodological and statistical rigor, reproducibility and transparency, figure integrity, ethical considerations, and writing quality. Each stage includes explicit criteria and red flags to check.

Covers evaluation of statistical assumptions, effect size reporting, multiple testing correction, power analysis, experimental controls, blinding, randomization, and computational reproducibility. Identifies common pitfalls such as circular analysis, selective reporting, and inappropriate test selection.

Includes built-in guidance for verifying adherence to major discipline-specific reporting guidelines including CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE, MIAME, and MINSEQE. Reference materials (references/reporting_standards.md) are bundled with the skill.

Produces hierarchically organized reports with a summary statement, numbered major comments, numbered minor comments, optional line-by-line notes, and questions for authors. Ensures feedback is specific, actionable, and appropriately prioritized.

Supports review of scientific slide decks with a mandatory image-based inspection workflow. Evaluates visual design, text readability, layout integrity (overflow, overlaps, font sizes), scientific content, citation coverage, and slide-to-duration ratio, with issues reported by slide number.

Checks for documented IRB or IACUC approval, informed consent, conflict of interest disclosures, data availability, authorship appropriateness, and concerns about fabrication, falsification, or duplicate publication.

A researcher assigned to review a clinical trial submission uses the skill to systematically evaluate the abstract, methods, statistical analyses, and CONSORT compliance, then generates a structured report with numbered major and minor comments ready to submit to the journal.

A review panel member works through a research application, assessing the rigor of the proposed experimental design, the justification of sample sizes, and the adequacy of reproducibility plans, producing prioritized written feedback for the applicant.

A conference organizer reviews submitted slide decks by converting them to images and inspecting each slide for text overflow, font size, contrast, citation completeness, and narrative structure, then delivers per-slide feedback with critical and minor issues categorized.

An author preparing a revised submission uses the skill to self-evaluate their updated manuscript against a checklist covering statistical reporting, reproducibility, figure integrity, and reporting guideline compliance before resubmission.