「peer review」の検索結果

Draft, audit, or revise responses to peer review, revision cover letters, and marked-manuscript or LaTeX revision packages. Use for 审稿意见回复、逐点回复、返修信、 rebuttals and edits to existing response drafts. Initial-submission materials belong to nature-writing; simulated peer review belongs to nature-reviewer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs ARA Seal Level 2 semantic epistemic review on Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions (evidence relevance, falsifiability, scope calibration, argument coherence, exploration integrity, methodological rigor) and producing a constructive, severity-ranked report with a Strong Accept-to-Reject recommendation. Use after Level 1 structural validation passes, when an ARA needs an objective epistemic critique before publication or release.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 9-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Structured peer review for analytical work. Use when reviewing teammates' analysis, providing constructive feedback, or establishing analysis quality standards.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Structured peer review of manuscripts and grants. 7-stage evaluation: initial assessment, section review, statistical rigor, reproducibility, figure integrity, ethics, writing. Covers CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA and report structure. For evidence quality see scientific-critical-thinking; scoring see scholar-evaluation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when checking your own manuscript before submission from a reviewer's perspective. Returns anticipated Major/Minor comments with fixes, including numerical, citation and leakage checks, with an optional multi-reviewer panel. Someone else's paper is /peer-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Report how many problems the two brains found: mutual review (the other model checks the work, from the peer-review records) and self-check (an agent finds its own error in its own conversation, judged by that agent's own model), side by side. Use when the owner asks whether the second agent or the reviews are worth it, or wants the week's review results.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory, coverage-bounded integrity checks, two-stage peer review, and auditable quality-assurance artifacts. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow, 연구부터 논문까지, 연구 주제 설정부터 논문 완성까지, 논문 전체 워크플로.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Structured 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to peer-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

360 feedback register: reviewer, subject, review cycle, visibility, due date and score, as CSV, SQL, JSON Schema or Notion on request. Use for 360 reviews or peer feedback cycles.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use this skill when writing, drafting, editing, reviewing, or revising any text to eliminate predictable AI tells, slop, and formulaic patterns. Trigger this skill whenever the user asks to "deslop", "de-AI", "make it sound human," "remove AI patterns," "remove AI tropes," "clean up AI writing," fix "slop," "deslop" text, or review prose for authenticity. Also use when the user asks you to write or draft anything and wants it to sound natural rather than AI-generated. Common use cases include scientific writing (manuscripts, abstracts, cover letters, grant narratives, discussion sections, peer review responses), blog posts, newsletters, memos, reports, and any other substantial prose.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Simulate structured grant peer review for biomedical proposals; use when stress-testing significance, innovation, approach, feasibility, and reviewer-facing weaknesses before submission.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when you need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。