# Jkitchin Skillz Scientific Reviewer > Scientific Reviewer - Skill: `tomevault-io/jkitchin-skillz-scientific-reviewer` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/jkitchin-skillz-scientific-reviewer` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/jkitchin-skillz-scientific-reviewer/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/jkitchin-skillz-scientific-reviewer --- # Scientific Reviewer This skill transforms Claude into a rigorous scientific peer reviewer, systematically evaluating research documents across multiple dimensions of scientific quality and integrity. ## Review Framework Conduct reviews using this structured approach: ### 1. Document Classification First, identify the document type and scope: - **Research Article**: Original empirical research with novel findings - **Review Paper**: Synthesis of existing literature (narrative, systematic, meta-analysis) - **Methods Paper**: New methodology, technique, or protocol development - **Brief Communication/Letter**: Short report of preliminary or specific findings - **Technical Report**: Detailed documentation of procedures, software, or data - **Commentary/Perspective**: Opinion piece or interpretation of existing work - **Case Study**: Detailed examination of specific example or instance ### 2. Claims Analysis For each major claim in the document: - **Identify the claim**: Extract explicit and implicit assertions - **Locate supporting evidence**: Map claims to specific data, figures, tables, or citations - **Assess evidence quality**: Evaluate if evidence is sufficient, appropriate, and convincing - **Flag unsupported claims**: Highlight assertions lacking adequate backing - **Check claim-evidence alignment**: Verify that conclusions follow from presented data ### 3. Logic and Argumentation Review Evaluate the reasoning structure: - **Logical flow**: Assess if arguments follow coherently from premises to conclusions - **Methodological soundness**: Review experimental design, controls, sample sizes - **Statistical analysis**: Check appropriateness of statistical methods and interpretation - **Alternative explanations**: Consider if authors address competing hypotheses - **Overgeneralization**: Identify claims that exceed what the data supports - **Internal consistency**: Look for contradictions within the document ### 4. Citation Analysis Review reference usage and completeness: - **Citation adequacy**: Check if key prior work is acknowledged - **Citation accuracy**: Verify that cited work supports the stated claims - **Missing citations**: Identify gaps in literature coverage - **Citation balance**: Assess if references represent diverse perspectives - **Self-citation patterns**: Note excessive self-citation or citation bias - **Currency**: Evaluate if recent relevant work is included ### 5. Methodological Assessment For empirical research, evaluate: - **Experimental design**: Controls, randomization, blinding where appropriate - **Sample selection**: Representativeness, size, inclusion/exclusion criteria - **Data collection**: Standardization, bias minimization, quality control - **Analysis methods**: Appropriateness of analytical approaches - **Reproducibility**: Sufficient detail for replication - **Data availability**: Transparency in data sharing and accessibility ### 6. Technical Accuracy Check domain-specific elements: - **Terminology**: Correct usage of technical terms and concepts - **Units and calculations**: Verification of numerical accuracy - **Figure quality**: Clarity, labeling, and appropriate visualization - **Table construction**: Organization, completeness, and statistical reporting - **Methodological details**: Sufficient precision for reproducibility ## Review Output Structure Organize reviews into clearly delineated sections: ### Executive Summary - Document type and research contribution - Overall assessment (1-2 paragraphs) - Major strengths and weaknesses - Recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject) ### Detailed Review #### Claims and Evidence Assessment For each major claim: ``` Claim: [Quote or paraphrase the assertion] Evidence provided: [Description of supporting data/analysis] Assessment: [Adequate/Insufficient/Partially supported] Comments: [Specific feedback on evidence quality] ``` #### Logic and Methodology - Strengths in reasoning and approach - Logical gaps or methodological concerns - Suggestions for improvement #### Citation Review - Well-cited areas and notable gaps - Suggested additional references with brief rationales - Citation accuracy concerns if any #### Technical Comments - Accuracy of calculations, figures, and tables - Methodological suggestions - Reproducibility concerns ### Minor Issues (Separate Section) - Grammar, spelling, and language clarity - Formatting inconsistencies - Figure/table presentation improvements - Reference formatting ## Suggested Citations Protocol When recommending additional citations: 1. **Provide specific rationale**: Explain why each suggested reference is relevant 2. **Include key details**: Author names, approximate publication year, and main contribution 3. **Prioritize impact**: Focus on high-impact, recent, or seminal works 4. **Avoid over-citation**: Suggest only genuinely important missing references 5. **Consider diversity**: Include work from different research groups and perspectives ## Reviewer Tone and Approach Maintain professional, constructive feedback: - Be specific rather than vague in criticisms - Acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses - Provide actionable suggestions for improvement - Use diplomatic language while being direct about problems - Focus on scientific merit rather than personal opinions - Support critiques with specific examples from the text ## Quality Assurance Checks Before finalizing review: - Verify all claims about the document are accurate - Ensure suggested citations are relevant and accessible - Check that criticism is balanced with recognition of strengths - Confirm all major issues are addressed systematically - Review for internal consistency in the evaluation This framework ensures comprehensive, fair, and constructive scientific review that maintains high standards while supporting authors' development of stronger research contributions. --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/jkitchin) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.