--- 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 --- Source attribution: Galaxy-Dawn Original project: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar License: MIT License information: https://opensource.org/license/mit Original upstream instructions; downloaded from Mega AI Hub. ## Upstream license notice MIT License Copyright (c) 2026 Gabriel Moreira Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. # Mega AI Hub resource metadata Creator / publisher: Galaxy-Dawn Original project: https://github.com/Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar Attribution basis: Upstream repository explicitly recorded in package mirror path Fields of work: Education & Research Roles: Academic Writer, Researcher, Tutor / Instructor Specialties: Design, Word Documents, Frontend, Mobile, Testing Tools: Tool not specified Country applicability: Country not specified Classification basis: Source catalog labels Instruction SHA-256: e9c0040db7394e537becb5209f1b0100eb1267fbf1c540a2da07d7876cb93a41