haipingxu/social-science-claude-scholar/paper-self-review

Paper Self-Review — Scored Quality Audit

Systematic 0-100 scored review for social science papers. Produces a structured report with blocking issues, warnings, and a submission readiness verdict.

Quality Thresholds

Step 1: Locate and Read the Paper

Read the full paper (.tex, .pdf, or .qmd). For long papers, read in logical chunks:

• Abstract + Introduction
• Theory/Hypotheses (if present)
• Data + Empirical Strategy
• Results + Robustness
• Conclusion

Step 2: Score Across 8 Dimensions

Start at 100. Apply deductions for each issue found.

Dimension 1: Identification & Causal Credibility (max deduction: 40)

Dimension 2: Main Results (max deduction: 25)

Dimension 3: Introduction Quality (max deduction: 20)

Dimension 4: Theory / Hypotheses (max deduction: 15, PolSci only)

Dimension 5: Data & Measurement (max deduction: 15)

Dimension 6: Literature Positioning (max deduction: 15)

Dimension 7: Writing Quality (max deduction: 10)

Dimension 8: Presentation (max deduction: 10)

Step 3: Generate Referee Objections

Produce 3-5 specific questions a hostile referee at a top journal would raise:

• Attack the identification strategy directly
• Challenge economic/political significance of the magnitude
• Point to missing heterogeneity analysis
• Flag inconsistency between theory and empirics
• Identify gaps in the literature review

Step 4: Output Format

# Paper Self-Review: [Paper Title]
 
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Track:** [Economics / Political Science]
**Target journal:** [If known]
 
---
 
## Overall Score: [N]/100
 
**Submission Readiness:** [READY / REVISE / NOT READY]
 
---
 
## Score Breakdown
 
| Dimension | Deductions | Subtotal |
|-----------|-----------|---------|
| 1. Identification & Causality | -X | Y/100 |
| 2. Main Results | -X | Y/100 |
| 3. Introduction | -X | Y/100 |
| 4. Theory/Hypotheses | -X | Y/100 |
| 5. Data & Measurement | -X | Y/100 |
| 6. Literature | -X | Y/100 |
| 7. Writing Quality | -X | Y/100 |
| 8. Presentation | -X | Y/100 |
| **TOTAL** | | **[N]/100** |
 
---
 
## Blocking Issues (must fix before submission)
 
### B1: [Title]
-**Dimension:** [Which dimension]
-**Issue:** [Specific description with location]
-**Fix:** [Concrete action required]
 
[Repeat for all blocking issues]
 
---
 
## Warnings (should fix)
 
### W1: [Title]
-**Issue:** [Description]
-**Suggested fix:** [Action]
 
---
 
## Referee Objections
 
### RO1: [Objection]
**Why fatal:** [Why this could cause rejection]
**How to address:** [Response or additional analysis]
 
[Repeat for 3-5 objections]
 
---
 
## Strengths
 
1.[What works well]
2.[What works well]
 
---
 
## Summary
 
[2-3 sentences: overall assessment and priority actions]

Principles

• Score 0-100 strictly — no inflation
• Every critique must include a concrete fix
• Distinguish blocking (< 80 without fixing) from warnings
• Think like a hostile referee at a top-5 journal
• Save report to session log under ## Paper Review