Manuscript Review

Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript — the kind of report a top-journal referee would write.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to a paper (.tex, .pdf, or .qmd), or a filename in master_supporting_docs/ .

Steps

Locate and read the manuscript. Check:

• Direct path from $ARGUMENTS

• master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/$ARGUMENTS

• Glob for partial matches

Read the full paper end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time).

Evaluate across 6 dimensions (see below).

Generate 3-5 "referee objections" — the tough questions a top referee would ask.

Produce the review report.

Save to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md

Review Dimensions

1. Argument Structure

• Is the research question clearly stated?

• Does the introduction motivate the question effectively?

• Is the logical flow sound (question → method → results → conclusion)?

• Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?

• Are limitations acknowledged?

2. Identification Strategy

• Is the causal claim credible?

• What are the key identifying assumptions? Are they stated explicitly?

• Are there threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error)?

• Are robustness checks adequate?

• Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?

3. Econometric Specification

• Correct standard errors (clustered? robust? bootstrap?)?

• Appropriate functional form?

• Sample selection issues?

• Multiple testing concerns?

• Are point estimates economically meaningful (not just statistically significant)?

4. Literature Positioning

• Are the key papers cited?

• Is prior work characterized accurately?

• Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?

• Any missing citations that a referee would flag?

5. Writing Quality

• Clarity and concision

• Academic tone

• Consistent notation throughout

• Abstract effectively summarizes the paper

• Tables and figures are self-contained (clear labels, notes, sources)

6. Presentation

• Are tables and figures well-designed?

• Is notation consistent throughout?

• Are there any typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues?

• Is the paper the right length for the contribution?

Output Format

Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]

Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Reviewer: review-paper skill File: [path to manuscript]

Summary Assessment

Overall recommendation: [Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject]

[2-3 paragraph summary: main contribution, strengths, and key concerns]

Strengths

1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]

Major Concerns

MC1: [Title]

• Dimension: [Identification / Econometrics / Argument / Literature / Writing / Presentation]
• Issue: [Specific description]
• Suggestion: [How to address it]
• Location: [Section/page/table if applicable]

[Repeat for each major concern]

Minor Concerns

mc1: [Title]

• Issue: [Description]
• Suggestion: [Fix]

[Repeat]

Referee Objections

These are the tough questions a top referee would likely raise:

RO1: [Question]

Why it matters: [Why this could be fatal] How to address it: [Suggested response or additional analysis]

[Repeat for 3-5 objections]

Specific Comments

[Line-by-line or section-by-section comments, if any]

Summary Statistics

Principles

• Be constructive. Every criticism should come with a suggestion.

• Be specific. Reference exact sections, equations, tables.

• Think like a referee at a top-5 journal. What would make them reject?

• Distinguish fatal flaws from minor issues. Not everything is equally important.

• Acknowledge what's done well. Good research deserves recognition.

• Do NOT fabricate details. If you can't read a section clearly, say so.