backup materials and knowledge-base docs
This commit is contained in:
admin
@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: paper-self-review
|
||||
description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", "audit claims", "check overclaiming", "verify whether results support claims", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers.
|
||||
version: 0.1.0
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Paper Self-Review
|
||||
|
||||
A systematic paper quality checking tool that helps researchers conduct comprehensive self-review before submission.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Features
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Structure Review
|
||||
|
||||
Check whether all sections of the paper are complete and conform to academic standards:
|
||||
- Does the Abstract include problem, method, results, and contributions?
|
||||
- Does the Introduction clearly articulate research motivation and background?
|
||||
- Is the Method detailed enough to be reproducible?
|
||||
- Do the Results sufficiently support the conclusions?
|
||||
- Does the Discussion address limitations and future work?
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Logic Consistency Check
|
||||
|
||||
Verify the logical coherence of the paper:
|
||||
- Do research questions match the methodology?
|
||||
- Does the experimental design support the research hypotheses?
|
||||
- Are result interpretations reasonable?
|
||||
- Are conclusions supported by evidence?
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Citation Completeness
|
||||
|
||||
Check the completeness and accuracy of citations:
|
||||
- Are all citations present in the references?
|
||||
- Is the reference format consistent?
|
||||
- Are key related works cited?
|
||||
- Do citations accurately reflect the original content?
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Research Claim Audit
|
||||
|
||||
Check whether the paper's claims are supported by the available evidence:
|
||||
- Are the main claims supported by results, citations, or analysis artifacts?
|
||||
- Are speculative observations clearly marked as tentative?
|
||||
- Does the paper avoid stronger wording than the evidence allows?
|
||||
- Are negative results, limitations, and missing baselines presented honestly?
|
||||
- Do conclusions stay inside the tested scope?
|
||||
|
||||
This audit does not replace `results-analysis` for statistics or `citation-verification` for bibliographic verification. It checks whether paper claims correctly use the available evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Figure/Table Quality
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of figures and tables:
|
||||
- Do all figures/tables have clear titles and captions?
|
||||
- Do figures/tables support the text narrative?
|
||||
- Are figures/tables clear and readable?
|
||||
- Do formats comply with journal/conference requirements?
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Writing Clarity
|
||||
|
||||
Check writing clarity and readability:
|
||||
- Is the language concise and clear?
|
||||
- Is technical terminology used appropriately?
|
||||
- Are sentence structures clear?
|
||||
- Is paragraph organization logical?
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Use this checklist for systematic paper self-review:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Paper Quality Checklist:
|
||||
- [ ] Abstract includes problem, method, results, contributions
|
||||
- [ ] Introduction clearly states research motivation
|
||||
- [ ] Method is reproducible
|
||||
- [ ] Results support conclusions
|
||||
- [ ] Main claims are supported by named evidence
|
||||
- [ ] Over-strong claims are weakened or removed
|
||||
- [ ] Discussion addresses limitations
|
||||
- [ ] All figures/tables have captions
|
||||
- [ ] Citations are complete and accurate
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
Use this skill in the following scenarios:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Pre-submission check** - Final review before submitting to a journal or conference
|
||||
- **After first draft** - Systematic review after completing the first draft
|
||||
- **Before advisor review** - Self-check before requesting advisor feedback to improve quality
|
||||
- **Post-revision verification** - After revising based on reviewer comments, verify all issues are addressed
|
||||
- **Collaborator review** - Quality check before sending to collaborators
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Process
|
||||
|
||||
Follow these steps for systematic paper review:
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1: Structure Review
|
||||
Start with the overall structure, checking if all sections are complete and logically coherent.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2: Content Review
|
||||
Dive into each section, checking content accuracy and completeness.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 3: Research Claim Audit
|
||||
Check whether each major claim is supported by the evidence available in the draft, analysis bundle, citations, or project notes.
|
||||
|
||||
Use this output shape:
|
||||
|
||||
```md
|
||||
## Claim Audit
|
||||
|
||||
Claim:
|
||||
Verdict: keep | weaken | revise | remove
|
||||
Evidence used:
|
||||
Missing evidence:
|
||||
Overclaim risk:
|
||||
Suggested wording:
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4: Citation Check
|
||||
Verify the completeness and accuracy of all citations.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 5: Figure/Table Review
|
||||
Check the quality and captions of all figures and tables.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 6: Writing Quality
|
||||
Review language expression and writing clarity.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 7: Final Checklist
|
||||
Use the quality checklist for final verification.
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Timing
|
||||
- **Spaced review** - Wait 1-2 days after completing the draft before reviewing to maintain objectivity
|
||||
- **Multiple rounds** - Conduct multiple review rounds, focusing on different aspects each time
|
||||
- **Print review** - Print a hard copy for review; issues are easier to spot on paper
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Techniques
|
||||
- **Reverse reading** - Read from conclusion backwards to check logical coherence
|
||||
- **Read aloud** - Reading the paper aloud helps identify language issues
|
||||
- **Reviewer perspective** - Assume you are a reviewer and read critically
|
||||
|
||||
### Common Issues
|
||||
- Abstract too brief or too verbose
|
||||
- Introduction lacks clear research question statement
|
||||
- Method lacks sufficient detail for reproduction
|
||||
- Results lack statistical significance tests
|
||||
- Discussion doesn't address research limitations
|
||||
- Figures/tables lack clear titles and captions
|
||||
- Inconsistent citation formatting
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
The Paper Self-Review skill provides a systematic paper quality checking process, helping researchers identify and resolve issues before submission, improving paper quality and acceptance rates.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Reference Files
|
||||
|
||||
Load only what is needed:
|
||||
- `references/SECTION-CHECKLIST.md` - section-by-section review questions
|
||||
- `references/FINAL-VERDICT.md` - how to summarize submission readiness and blocking issues
|
||||
- `examples/example-self-review.md` - example review output
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user