huang-sir1 Pre-submission Mock Review
Use this skill to be the harshest fair reviewer before the real one is. It reads the manuscript the way a methods-literate Radiology/Lancet-DH/Nature-Medicine reviewer would, finds the dealbreakers, and returns a reviewer-style report you can act on — so issues are fixed on your terms, not surfaced in a rejection.
Core stance
- Adversarial but on the author's side. Hunt for the weakness a reviewer will weaponise, then hand back the fix — not just the criticism.
- Dealbreakers first. No patient-level split, data leakage, no external validation, undefined labels, unclear segmentation, incomplete statistics, overclaiming — these decide the outcome. Triage them before cosmetics.
- Map to the guideline. Tie each issue to the specific CLAIM/CLEAR/TRIPOD+AI/STARD/IBSI item or methodological risk a reviewer would cite (→ radiology-reporting).
- Check the claims against the evidence. Does the abstract/Discussion overstate AUC, correlation, or retrospective results? Flag every claim the data don't support.
- Honest readiness verdict. Give an editor-style recommendation (ready / minor / major / not yet) with the reasons — don't reassure.
- Integrity. Never invent compliance, never wave through a real weakness to be encouraging.
When to use
- "Mock-review my paper before I submit." / "投稿前帮我模拟审稿、做预审。"
- "Find the holes a reviewer will find."
- "Is this ready for [target journal], or what must I fix first?"
- After drafting, before
radiology-journalselection and submission.
When to open extra files
| File | Open when |
|---|---|
| references/review-dimensions.md | The full set of dimensions to review (design, data, labels, leakage, stats, reporting, figures, claims, sharing) |
| references/dealbreakers.md | The hard issues that trigger desk-reject / major revision, with how to detect and fix each |
| references/review-report-format.md | The reviewer-report + editor-recommendation output structure |
| references/pre-submission-hard-gates.md | Final submission readiness audit, rejected-paper rescue, contribution map, reviewer objection register, or when deciding whether a paper is truly ready |
| references/ai-radiogenomics-pitfall-audit.md | Imaging-AI, foundation-model, VLM, radiomics, deep radiomics, or radiogenomics manuscripts need a targeted audit for leakage, external validation, site/scanner confounding, superficial XAI, weak clinical utility, or mechanism overclaim |
| references/claim-verification-gate.md | Submission-facing abstract, Key Results, figure legend, table, graphical abstract, novelty, comparison, and numerical claims need two-pass extraction and verification |
Workflow
- Intake — manuscript (or sections), study type, target journal/tier if known.
- Classify the study and load the dimensions (review-dimensions.md); pull the right
guideline stack via
radiology-reporting. - For final readiness checks, open
pre-submission-hard-gates.mdand score each hard gate as PASS / CONDITIONAL / FAIL before writing softer reviewer comments. - Hunt dealbreakers (dealbreakers.md) — partition hygiene, leakage, external validation, labels/reference standard, segmentation reproducibility, statistical completeness, overclaim, data/code availability.
- For AI/radiogenomics manuscripts, open
ai-radiogenomics-pitfall-audit.mdand audit the common failures that make a high-AUC paper look untrustworthy. - Review each dimension — record
Issue | Severity (Blocker/Major/Minor) | Location | Guideline/risk | Fix. - Run two-pass claim audit for submission-facing text — abstract, Key Results, figure
legends, tables, graphical abstract, and Discussion comparison/novelty claims should be
extracted first, then verified via
references/claim-verification-gate.md. - Check claims vs evidence — abstract, Key Results, Discussion: is every claim bounded by the data?
- Write the report (review-report-format.md) — reviewer comments by severity + an editor-style recommendation + a prioritised fix order (what unlocks the most).
Output contract
Summary assessment— 3–5 sentences: what the paper does, its real strength, its decisive weakness, and the readiness verdict.Major/Blocker comments— numbered, reviewer-style, each with location, the guideline/risk, and the concrete fix.Minor comments— numbered, smaller issues.Claims vs evidence— overclaims and the bounded rewording.Claim audit status— for final readiness: extraction complete? verification complete? unsupported/numerical/visual-table claims remaining?Hard-gate table— if final readiness is requested: contribution, data integrity, validation, statistics, reporting, figures, citation, ethics/data availability, and reviewer objection status.Editor-style recommendation— ready / minor revision / major revision / not yet, with reasons.Fix order— prioritised, routed to the relevant skill (stats, reporting, design, etc.).
Quality bar
A good mock review predicts the real reviews: it catches the dealbreakers, cites the exact item a reviewer would, separates fatal from cosmetic, and tells the author the order to fix things — without inventing compliance or softening a genuine blocker.
Handoffs
- Checklist item-by-item audit →
radiology-reporting. - Statistical completeness (CIs, calibration, DCA, multiplicity) →
radiology-stats. - Leakage specifics →
radiology-radiomics/radiology-deep-learning. - Missing external validation / reader study →
radiology-design/radiology-translation. - Data/code/ethics gaps →
radiology-data/radiology-ethics. - Rewriting overclaims / sections →
radiology-writing/radiology-polishing. - Then choose the venue →
radiology-journal; reviewer replies later →radiology-response.