Paper Reviewer

Scientific Paper Reviewer Skill (Multi-Venue)

Quick Reference Card

START HERE: Use the venue detection tree below before proceeding.

VENUE DETECTION TREE:
User mentions "NeurIPS" OR has neurips template? 
→ Use Section 3: NeurIPS Review Pathway

User mentions "IEEE" OR has IEEE template/format?
→ Use Section 4: IEEE Review Pathway  

Cannot determine?
→ Ask user: "Is this for NeurIPS, IEEE, or another venue?"

1. Skill Overview

Purpose: Systematic, standards-compliant peer review for NeurIPS conferences and IEEE journals/transactions.

Key Features:

• Dual-pathway architecture (NeurIPS vs IEEE)
• Intelligent venue routing
• Venue-specific scoring systems
• Shared ethics and classification components

2. Architecture

paper-reviewer-v2/
├── SKILL.md (orchestrator - this file)
├── components/
│   ├── shared/
│   │   ├── venue-detector.md ← START HERE
│   │   ├── paper-classifier.md
│   │   └── ethics-screener.md
│   ├── neurips/ ← NeurIPS-specific evaluation
│   └── ieee/ ← IEEE-specific evaluation
├── templates/
│   ├── neurips/review-synthesis.md
│   └── ieee/review-synthesis.md
└── reference/
    ├── neurips/[NeurIPS guidelines]
    └── ieee/[IEEE guidelines]

3. NeurIPS Review Pathway

Overview

• Format: Conference (double-blind)
• Scoring: 1-6 scale with acceptance rate targets
• Timeline: 3-4 hours per paper
• Key requirement: Mandatory paper checklist

Review Stages

Stage 1: Paper Classification (15 min)

• Use: components/shared/paper-classifier.md
• Output: Primary type + secondary characteristics

Stage 2: Technical Assessment (45-60 min)

• Use: components/neurips/technical-assessment.md
• Output: Quality score (1-4)

Stage 3: Contribution Assessment (30-40 min)

• Use: components/neurips/contribution-assessment.md
• Output: Originality (1-4) + Significance (1-4)

Stage 4: Clarity Assessment (20-30 min)

• Use: components/neurips/clarity-assessment.md
• Output: Clarity score (1-4)

Stage 5: Ethics & Checklist (20-30 min)

• Use: components/shared/ethics-screener.md
• Use: components/neurips/checklist-processor.md
• Output: Ethics flag + checklist compliance

Stage 6: Scoring & Synthesis (30-45 min)

• Use: templates/neurips/review-synthesis.md
• Output: Overall score (1-6) + Confidence (1-5)

NeurIPS Scoring Scale

NeurIPS Review Format

SUMMARY: [100-200 words - factual overview]

STRENGTHS: [3-7 specific points with line refs]
1. [Strength with evidence]
2. [Strength with evidence]
...

WEAKNESSES: [3-8 specific points with line refs]
1. [Weakness with evidence and severity]
2. [Weakness with evidence and severity]
...

QUESTIONS: [3-5 questions for authors]
1. [Question] - Impact: [How answer affects evaluation]
2. [Question] - Impact: [How answer affects evaluation]
...

LIMITATIONS: [Yes/No + justification]
ETHICAL CONCERNS: [Yes/No + details if flagged]

SCORES:
- Quality: [1-4]
- Clarity: [1-4]  
- Originality: [1-4]
- Significance: [1-4]
- Overall: [1-6] [Detailed justification]
- Confidence: [1-5] [Basis for confidence level]

4. IEEE Review Pathway

Overview

• Format: Journal (single-blind typical)
• Decision: 3-tier (Accept/Revise/Reject)
• Timeline: Prompt completion (editor has 90-day window)
• Key focus: Technical soundness + practical significance

Review Stages

Stage 1: Paper Classification (15 min)

• Use: components/shared/paper-classifier.md
• Note: IEEE papers typically longer, more comprehensive

Stage 2: Technical Assessment (45-60 min)

• Use: components/ieee/technical-assessment.md
• Output: Technical soundness evaluation

Stage 3: Significance Assessment (30-40 min)

• Use: components/ieee/significance-assessment.md
• Output: Originality + significance evaluation

Stage 4: Clarity Assessment (20-30 min)

• Use: components/ieee/clarity-assessment.md
• Output: Communication quality assessment

Stage 5: Ethics Screening (15-20 min)

• Use: components/shared/ethics-screener.md
• Focus: Plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity

Stage 6: Decision Recommendation (30-45 min)

• Use: templates/ieee/review-synthesis.md
• Output: Accept/Revise/Reject recommendation

IEEE Decision Framework

Decision Tree:
Research technically sound?
├─ NO → REJECT (explain flaws)
└─ YES → Contribution significant?
    ├─ NO → REJECT (insufficient contribution)
    └─ YES → Issues requiring changes?
        ├─ NONE → ACCEPT (rare on first submission)
        ├─ MINOR → MINOR REVISION
        └─ MAJOR → MAJOR REVISION

IEEE Review Format

SUMMARY: [Brief restatement of purpose/findings]

MAJOR CONCERNS:
1. [Methodological/analytical issues]
2. [Significant technical problems]
...

MINOR CONCERNS:
1. [Clarity/presentation issues]
2. [Editorial suggestions]
...

STRENGTHS:
- [Notable positive aspects]
- [Well-executed elements]
...

QUESTIONS FOR AUTHORS:
- [Clarifications needed]
- [Additional details required]
...

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
- [Constructive, actionable feedback]
- [Reference additions with justification]
...

OVERALL ASSESSMENT: [Holistic evaluation]

RECOMMENDATION: [Accept / Major Revision / Minor Revision / Reject]
[Detailed justification for recommendation]

5. Best Practices (All Venues)

Universal Do's

✓ Complete venue detection first ✓ Be thorough and systematic
✓ Provide specific, actionable feedback ✓ Maintain professional tone ✓ Support criticisms with clear reasoning ✓ Complete reviews promptly ✓ Protect confidentiality

Universal Don'ts

✗ Skip venue detection ✗ Use AI tools to draft reviews ✗ Be vague or dismissive ✗ Speculate about authors ✗ Suggest excessive irrelevant references ✗ Review with conflicts of interest ✗ Share confidential information

6. Venue Comparison Matrix

7. Quick Start Instructions

New users:

1. Read this SKILL.md first
2. Run venue detection (Section 2)
3. Follow appropriate pathway (Section 3 or 4)
4. Use components in order

Experienced reviewers:

1. Confirm venue
2. Jump to appropriate stage
3. Reference scoring/decision frameworks as needed

8. Component Dependencies

Shared (Used by Both Venues)

• venue-detector.md - ALWAYS run first
• paper-classifier.md - Classification for both venues
• ethics-screener.md - Universal ethics check

NeurIPS-Specific

• technical-assessment.md - Conference-focused evaluation
• contribution-assessment.md - Novelty emphasis
• clarity-assessment.md - Reproducibility focus
• checklist-processor.md - NeurIPS mandatory checklist
• scoring-calibration.md - 1-6 score determination

IEEE-Specific

• technical-assessment.md - Journal-depth evaluation
• significance-assessment.md - Practical impact focus
• clarity-assessment.md - Communication quality
• decision-recommendation.md - 3-tier decision logic

9. Troubleshooting

Can't determine venue? → Use components/shared/venue-detector.md protocol

Unsure about scoring? → NeurIPS: Check acceptance rate targets in Section 3 → IEEE: Use decision tree in Section 4

Ethics concerns? → Flag immediately, consult ethics-screener.md

Paper spans multiple types? → Use paper-classifier.md to identify primary + secondary

Deadline pressure? → Prioritize technical assessment and decision, but complete all stages

10. Skill Metadata

Version: 2.0 (Multi-Venue) Supported: NeurIPS 2025, IEEE Journals/Transactions 2025 Last Updated: October 2025 Maintainer: Review Standards Committee

Changelog:

• v2.0: Added IEEE pathway with decision tree routing
• v2.0: Created venue detection component
• v2.0: Separated shared vs venue-specific components
• v1.0: NeurIPS-only implementation

Appendix: Ethical Principles (Both Venues)

Confidentiality: Never share or use unpublished work Objectivity: Review based on merit, not personal bias Constructiveness: Help authors improve their work Professionalism: Maintain respectful, courteous tone Integrity: Report suspected misconduct promptly Timeliness: Complete reviews within expected timeframe Independence: Declare conflicts, decline if present

END OF MAIN SKILL DOCUMENTATION

For detailed component usage, see individual files in components/, templates/, and reference/ directories.