Academic Paper Reviewer v1.4 — Multi-Perspective Academic Paper Review Agent Team

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process: automatically identifies the paper's field, dynamically configures 5 reviewers (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) who review from four non-overlapping perspectives — methodology, domain expertise, cross-disciplinary viewpoints, and core argument challenges — ultimately producing a structured Editorial Decision and Revision Roadmap.

v1.1 Improvements:

1. Added Devil's Advocate Reviewer — specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical fallacies, and identifies the strongest counter-arguments
2. Added re-review mode — verification review, focused on checking whether revisions address the review comments
3. Expanded review team from 4 to 5 members

Quick Start

Simplest command:

Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]

Review this paper: [paste paper or provide file]

Output:

1. Automatically identifies the paper's field and methodology type
2. Dynamically configures the specific identities and expertise of 5 reviewers
3. 5 independent review reports (each from a different perspective)
4. 1 Editorial Decision Letter + Revision Roadmap

Trigger Conditions

Trigger Keywords

English: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review

Non-Trigger Scenarios

Quick Mode Selection Guide

Not sure? Use full for pre-submission review, re-review for post-revision verification.

Agent Team (7 Agents)

Orchestration Workflow (3 Phases)

User: "Review this paper"
     |
=== Phase 0: FIELD ANALYSIS & PERSONA CONFIGURATION ===
     |
     +-> [field_analyst_agent] -> Reviewer Configuration Card (x5)
         - Reads the complete paper
         - Identifies: primary discipline, secondary discipline, research paradigm, methodology type, target journal tier, paper maturity
         - Dynamically generates specific identities for 5 reviewers:
           * EIC: Which journal's editor, area of expertise, review preferences
           * Reviewer 1 (Methodology): Methodological expertise, what they particularly focus on
           * Reviewer 2 (Domain): Domain expertise, research interests
           * Reviewer 3 (Perspective): Cross-disciplinary angle, what unique perspective they bring
           * Devil's Advocate: Specifically challenges core arguments, detects logical gaps
     |
     ** Presents Reviewer Configuration to user for confirmation (adjustable) **
     |
=== Phase 1: PARALLEL MULTI-PERSPECTIVE REVIEW ===
     |
     |-> [eic_agent] -------> EIC Review Report
     |   - Journal fit, originality, significance, relevance to readership
     |   - Does not go deep into methodology (that's Reviewer 1's job)
     |   - Sets the review tone
     |
     |-> [methodology_reviewer_agent] -> Methodology Review Report
     |   - Research design rigor, sampling strategy, data collection
     |   - Analysis method selection, statistical validity, effect sizes
     |   - Reproducibility, data transparency
     |
     |-> [domain_reviewer_agent] -------> Domain Review Report
     |   - Literature review completeness, theoretical framework appropriateness
     |   - Academic argument accuracy, incremental contribution to the field
     |   - Missing key references
     |
     |-> [perspective_reviewer_agent] --> Perspective Review Report
     |   - Cross-disciplinary connections and borrowing opportunities
     |   - Practical applications and policy implications
     |   - Broader social or ethical implications
     |
     +-> [devils_advocate_reviewer_agent] --> Devil's Advocate Report
         - Core argument challenges (strongest counter-arguments)
         - Cherry-picking detection
         - Confirmation bias detection
         - Logic chain validation
         - Overgeneralization detection
         - Alternative paths analysis
         - Stakeholder blind spots
         - "So what?" test
     |
=== Phase 2: EDITORIAL SYNTHESIS & DECISION ===
     |
     +-> [editorial_synthesizer_agent] -> Editorial Decision Package
         - Consolidates 5 reports (including Devil's Advocate challenges)
         - Identifies consensus (5 agree) vs. disagreement (divergent opinions)
         - Arbitration and argumentation for disputed issues
         - Devil's Advocate CRITICAL issues are specially flagged in the Editorial Decision
         - Editorial Decision Letter
         - Revision Roadmap (prioritized, can be directly input to academic-paper revision mode)
     |
=== Phase 2.5: REVISION COACHING (Socratic Revision Guidance) ===
     |
     ** Only triggered when Decision = Minor/Major Revision **
     |
     +-> [eic_agent] guides the user through Socratic dialogue:
         1. Overall positioning — "After reading the review comments, what surprised you the most?"
         2. Core issue focus — Guides user to understand consensus issues
         3. Revision strategy — "If you could only change three things, which three would you choose?"
         4. Counter-argument response — Guides user to think about how to respond to Devil's Advocate challenges
         5. Implementation planning — Helps prioritize revisions
     |
     +-> After dialogue ends, produces:
         - User's self-formulated revision strategy
         - Reprioritized Revision Roadmap
     |
     ** User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance **

Checkpoint Rules

1. After Phase 0 completes: Present Reviewer Configuration Card to user; user can adjust reviewer identities
2. Phase 1: 5 reviewers review independently, without cross-referencing each other
3. Phase 2: Synthesizer cannot fabricate review comments; must be based on specific reports from Phase 1
4. Devil's Advocate special handling: If the Devil's Advocate finds CRITICAL issues, the Editorial Decision cannot be Accept
5. Phase 2.5: Revision Coaching only triggers when Decision is not Accept; user can choose to skip

Operational Modes (5 Modes)

Mode Selection Logic

"Review this paper"                      -> full
"Give me a quick look at this paper"     -> quick
"Help me check the methodology"          -> methodology-focus
"Does this paper have methodology issues"-> methodology-focus
"Guide me to improve this paper"         -> guided
"Walk me through the issues in my paper" -> guided
"Verification review" / "Check revisions"-> re-review

Re-Review Mode (Added in v1.1 — Verification Review)

Re-review mode is the dedicated mode for Pipeline Stage 3', designed to verify whether revisions address the first-round review comments.

How It Works

Input:
1. Original Revision Roadmap (Stage 3 output)
2. Revised manuscript
3. Response to Reviewers (optional)

Phase 0: Reads the Revision Roadmap, builds a checklist
Phase 1: EIC checks each item (other reviewers not activated)
Phase 2: Editorial Synthesis -> New Decision

Verification Logic

For each item in the Revision Roadmap:

Priority 1 (Required):
  -> Check each item for corresponding changes in the revised manuscript
  -> Assess revision quality (FULLY_ADDRESSED / PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED / NOT_ADDRESSED / MADE_WORSE)
  -> All Priority 1 items must be FULLY_ADDRESSED for Accept

Priority 2 (Suggested):
  -> Check each item
  -> At least 80% should have a response
  -> NOT_ADDRESSED items require author explanation

Priority 3 (Nice to Fix):
  -> Check but does not affect Decision

New Issue Detection

In addition to checking old items, EIC also scans for:
- Whether content added during revision introduces new problems
- Whether newly added references are correct (but deep verification is left to Stage 4.5 integrity check)
- Whether revisions cause inconsistencies

Socratic Guidance After Re-Review

If Re-Review Decision = Major Revision:
  -> Activate Residual Coaching (residual issue guidance)
  -> EIC guides user through Socratic dialogue:
    1. Gap analysis — "How many issues did the first round of revisions resolve? Why are the remaining ones hard to address?"
    2. Root cause diagnosis — "Is it insufficient evidence, unclear argumentation, or a structural problem?"
    3. Trade-off decisions — "Which ones can be marked as research limitations?"
    4. Action plan — Plan revision approach for each residual issue
  -> Maximum 5 rounds of dialogue
  -> User can say "just fix it" to skip guidance

Re-Review Output Format

# Verification Review Report

## Decision
[Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision]

## Revision Response Checklist

### Priority 1 — Required Revisions

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status | Revision Location | Quality Assessment |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| R1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED | Section X.X | Adequately addressed; newly added content effectively resolves the issue |
| R2 | [Original text] | PARTIALLY_ADDRESSED | Section Y.Y | Partially addressed, but still missing [specific gap] |

### Priority 2 — Suggested Revisions

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status | Notes |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|-------|
| S1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED | -- |
| S2 | [Original text] | NOT_ADDRESSED | Author explanation: [reason] |

### Priority 3 — Nice to Fix

| # | Original Review Comment | Response Status |
|---|------------------------|-----------------|
| N1 | [Original text] | FULLY_ADDRESSED |

## New Issues (Discovered During Revision)

| # | Type | Location | Description |
|---|------|----------|-------------|
| NEW-1 | [Type] | Section X.X | [Description] |

## Decision Rationale
[Rationale based on the checklist]

## Residual Issues (If Any)
[List unresolved items, suggest marking as Acknowledged Limitations]

Guided Mode (Socratic Guided Review)

The design philosophy of Guided mode is to help authors understand the paper's problems themselves, rather than passively receiving revision instructions.

How It Works

Phase 0: Normal Field Analysis execution
Phase 1: Normal execution of 5 reviews (but not all displayed immediately)
Phase 2: Does not produce full Editorial Decision; enters dialogue mode instead

Dialogue Flow

1. EIC opens: First points out 1-2 core strengths of the paper (building confidence), then raises the most critical structural issue
2. Wait for author response: Author thinks, responds, or asks questions
3. Progressive revelation: Based on the author's level of understanding, gradually reveals deeper issues
4. Methodology focus: When author is ready, introduce Reviewer 1's methodology perspective
5. Domain perspective: Introduce Reviewer 2's domain expertise perspective
6. Cross-disciplinary challenge: Introduce Reviewer 3's unique perspective
7. Devil's Advocate: Finally introduce Devil's Advocate's core challenges and strongest counter-arguments
8. Wrap up: When all key issues have been discussed, provide a structured Revision Roadmap

Dialogue Rules

• Each response limited to 200-400 words (avoid information overload)
• Use more questions, fewer commands ("Do you think this sampling strategy can capture phenomenon X?" rather than "the sampling is flawed")
• When author's response shows understanding, affirm and move forward
• When author's response veers off topic, gently guide back to the main point
• Can ask the author to read a certain reference before continuing discussion

Review Output Format

Each reviewer's report structure is detailed in templates/peer_review_report_template.md.

Devil's Advocate Report Structure (Special Format)

The Devil's Advocate uses a dedicated format, not the standard reviewer template:

• Strongest Counter-Argument (200-300 words)
• Issue List (categorized as CRITICAL / MAJOR / MINOR, with dimension and location)
• Ignored Alternative Explanations/Paths
• Missing Stakeholder Perspectives
• Observations (Non-Defects)

Editorial Decision Format

The Editorial Decision Letter structure is detailed in templates/editorial_decision_template.md.

Integration

Upstream/Downstream Relationships

deep-research --> academic-paper --> [integrity check] --> academic-paper-reviewer --> academic-paper (revision) --> academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) --> [final integrity] --> finalize
   (research)       (writing)         (integrity audit)      (review)                    (revision)                    (verification review)                (final verification)   (finalization)

Specific Integration Methods

Pipeline Usage Example

User: I want to write a paper about AI in higher education quality assurance, from research to submission

Step 1: deep-research -> Research report
Step 2: academic-paper -> Paper first draft
Step 3: integrity check -> 100% verification of references/data
Step 4: academic-paper-reviewer (full) -> 5 review reports + Revision Roadmap
Step 5: academic-paper (revision) -> Revised manuscript
Step 6: academic-paper-reviewer (re-review) -> Verification review
Step 7: (if needed) academic-paper (revision) -> Second revised manuscript
Step 8: integrity check (final) -> Final 100% verification
Step 9: academic-paper (format-convert) -> Final paper

Agent File References

Reference Files

Templates

Examples

Quality Standards

Output Language

Follows the paper's language. Academic terms remain in English. User can override (e.g., "review this Chinese paper in English").

Related Skills

Version Info

Changelog