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

Manuscript Review — Referee Report

Produce a thorough, constructive review of an academic manuscript. Think like a demanding but fair referee at AER, QJE, APSR, or AJPS.

Input: Path to paper (.tex, .pdf, .qmd), or paper title in context.

Steps

1. Locate and Read

Read the full paper end-to-end. For long papers, read in chunks:

• Abstract + Introduction (always first)
• Theory/hypotheses
• Data + identification strategy
• Results + robustness
• Conclusion

2. Evaluate Across 6 Dimensions

Dimension 1: Argument Structure

• Is the research question clearly stated in the introduction?
• Does the logical flow hold: question → design → results → conclusion?
• Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
• Are limitations acknowledged honestly?

Dimension 2: Identification & Causal Credibility

• What is the causal claim? Is it credible?
• Are the key identifying assumptions stated explicitly?
• What are the main threats to identification (omitted variables, reverse causality, attrition)?
• Are robustness checks adequate and appropriate?
• Are pre-trends tests shown (for DID)? Fuzzy first-stage (for RDD/IV)?
• Is the estimator appropriate for the research design?

Dimension 3: Econometric Specification

• Are standard errors appropriate (clustered, heteroskedasticity-robust, bootstrap)?
• Is the functional form justified?
• Are effect sizes economically meaningful — not just statistically significant?
• Are there multiple testing concerns?
• Is the regression table complete (N, R-squared, fixed effects notation)?

Dimension 4: Literature Positioning

• Are seminal papers in this literature cited?
• Is prior work characterized accurately?
• Is the contribution clearly differentiated from existing work?
• Are there obvious missing citations a referee would flag?

Dimension 5: Writing Quality

• Is the abstract specific — does it state the main result with magnitude?
• Is the introduction self-contained (contribution clear without reading the whole paper)?
• Is notation consistent throughout?
• Are tables and figures self-contained (clear labels, units, source notes)?

Dimension 6: Data and Measurement

• Is the main outcome variable credibly operationalized?
• Is sample selection (inclusion/exclusion criteria) justified?
• Are descriptive statistics presented?
• Are data sources cited with access information?

3. Generate Referee Objections

Produce 3-5 specific fatal objections a hostile referee would raise:

• Attack the identification strategy first (this is where papers die)
• Challenge the economic/political significance of the effect size
• Identify the most glaring gap in the literature review
• Point to a missing heterogeneity analysis that would reveal mechanism
• Flag any inconsistency between the theory and the empirics

Output Format

# Referee Report: [Paper Title]
 
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** review-paper skill
**Track:** [Economics / Political Science]
**Recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Minor R&R / Major R&R / Reject]
 
---
 
## Summary Assessment
 
[2-3 paragraphs: main contribution, key strengths, fatal concerns]
 
---
 
## Major Concerns
 
### MC1: [Short Title]
-**Dimension:** [Identification / Econometrics / Literature / Writing / Data]
-**Issue:** [Specific description with section/table reference]
-**Why it matters:** [How this threatens the paper]
-**Suggested fix:** [Concrete action]
 
[Repeat for each major concern]
 
---
 
## Minor Concerns
 
### mc1: [Title]
-**Issue:** [Description]
-**Fix:** [Action]
 
---
 
## Referee Objections (Top 3-5)
 
### RO1: [The Objection]
**Why this could cause rejection:** [Mechanism]
**How to address:** [Response strategy or additional analysis needed]
 
---
 
## Specific Comments
 
[Section-by-section or line-level comments if needed]
 
---
 
## Summary Scorecard
 
| Dimension | Rating (1-5) | Notes |
|-----------|-------------|-------|
| Argument Structure | [N] | |
| Identification | [N] | |
| Econometrics | [N] | |
| Literature | [N] | |
| Writing | [N] | |
| Data & Measurement | [N] | |
| **Overall** | **[N]** | |

Principles

• Every criticism must include a concrete suggested fix
• Reference exact sections, equations, tables — not vague descriptions
• Distinguish fatal flaws (would reject) from addressable concerns (R&R)
• Acknowledge what's done well — good research deserves recognition
• Do NOT fabricate details or citations — flag uncertainty explicitly
• Save the report to the session log or /plan folder