kimtth Goal: a fair, specific review that separates contribution from flaws.
Use for:
- reviewing a paper before submission or as a referee
- giving structured feedback on a draft
- assessing whether claims are supported by evidence
Workflow:
- Load the paper; extract its text and section structure.
- Review from three personas: harsh-but-fair, harsh-critical, open-minded.
- For each persona, score with a structured review form (e.g. NeurIPS).
- Reflect and refine each review for accuracy and soundness.
- Aggregate: average scores, weighting overall and contribution highest.
- Write a meta-review: consensus strengths, weaknesses, and a decision.
Assess:
- novelty relative to prior work
- soundness of methodology and analysis
- adequacy of baselines, ablations, and evaluation
- honesty about limitations and threats to validity
Rules:
- tie every critique to a specific passage or result
- find consensus across personas before deciding
- separate major issues from minor ones; suggest fixes
- judge the evidence, not the abstract's claims
Rules:
- tie every critique to a specific passage or result
- distinguish "wrong" from "not my preference"
- check claims against the actual evidence, not the abstract
- be rigorous and fair; acknowledge real strengths