Manuscript Review

Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript — the kind of report a top-journal referee would write.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to a paper (.tex, .pdf, or .qmd), or a filename in master_supporting_docs/.

Steps

1. •

   Locate and read the manuscript. Check:

   • •Direct path from $ARGUMENTS
   • •master_supporting_docs/supporting_papers/$ARGUMENTS
   • •Glob for partial matches
2. •

   Read the full paper end-to-end. For long PDFs, read in chunks (5 pages at a time).

3. •

   Evaluate across 6 dimensions (see below).

4. •

   Generate 3-5 "referee objections" — the tough questions a top referee would ask.

5. •

   Produce the review report.

6. •

   Save to quality_reports/paper_review_[sanitized_name].md

Review Dimensions

1. Argument Structure

• •Is the research question clearly stated?
• •Does the introduction motivate the question effectively?
• •Is the logical flow sound (question → method → results → conclusion)?
• •Are the conclusions supported by the evidence?
• •Are limitations acknowledged?

2. Identification Strategy

• •Is the causal claim credible?
• •What are the key identifying assumptions? Are they stated explicitly?
• •Are there threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, measurement error)?
• •Are robustness checks adequate?
• •Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?

3. Econometric Specification

• •Correct standard errors (clustered? robust? bootstrap?)?
• •Appropriate functional form?
• •Sample selection issues?
• •Multiple testing concerns?
• •Are point estimates economically meaningful (not just statistically significant)?

4. Literature Positioning

• •Are the key papers cited?
• •Is prior work characterized accurately?
• •Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
• •Any missing citations that a referee would flag?

5. Writing Quality

• •Clarity and concision
• •Academic tone
• •Consistent notation throughout
• •Abstract effectively summarizes the paper
• •Tables and figures are self-contained (clear labels, notes, sources)

6. Presentation

• •Are tables and figures well-designed?
• •Is notation consistent throughout?
• •Are there any typos, grammatical errors, or formatting issues?
• •Is the paper the right length for the contribution?

Output Format

# Manuscript Review: [Paper Title]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill
**File:** [path to manuscript]

## Summary Assessment

**Overall recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Revise & Resubmit / Reject]

[2-3 paragraph summary: main contribution, strengths, and key concerns]

## Strengths

1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]

## Major Concerns

### MC1: [Title]
- **Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Argument / Literature / Writing / Presentation]
- **Issue:** [Specific description]
- **Suggestion:** [How to address it]
- **Location:** [Section/page/table if applicable]

[Repeat for each major concern]

## Minor Concerns

### mc1: [Title]
- **Issue:** [Description]
- **Suggestion:** [Fix]

[Repeat]

## Referee Objections

These are the tough questions a top referee would likely raise:

### RO1: [Question]
**Why it matters:** [Why this could be fatal]
**How to address it:** [Suggested response or additional analysis]

[Repeat for 3-5 objections]

## Specific Comments

[Line-by-line or section-by-section comments, if any]

## Summary Statistics

| Dimension | Rating (1-5) |
|-----------|-------------|
| Argument Structure | [N] |
| Identification | [N] |
| Econometrics | [N] |
| Literature | [N] |
| Writing | [N] |
| Presentation | [N] |
| **Overall** | **[N]** |

Principles

• •Be constructive. Every criticism should come with a suggestion.
• •Be specific. Reference exact sections, equations, tables.
• •Think like a referee at a top-5 journal. What would make them reject?
• •Distinguish fatal flaws from minor issues. Not everything is equally important.
• •Acknowledge what's done well. Good research deserves recognition.
• •Do NOT fabricate details. If you can't read a section clearly, say so.