Review Paper

Simulate a double-blind peer review of the current paper. Generates 2 independent reviewer reports in the style of top IS/CS conferences (ICIS, ECIS, MISQ level). Each report includes Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Minor Comments, and Overall Recommendation. Output is saved as simulated_reviews.md and can be fed directly into /respond-reviewers for systematic revision.

Review Paper: $ARGUMENTS

Activate the peer-review-engine skill. Read skills/peer-review-engine/SKILL.md in full.

Execute the complete 6-step simulated peer review workflow:

  1. LOCATE & READ the paper (draft.md or paper.tex — use the most recent version)
  2. ASSESS against 7 evaluation dimensions (contribution, theory, method, literature, argumentation, writing, relevance)
  3. GENERATE Reviewer 1 — "The Methodologist" (focus: research design, rigor, validity, replicability)
  4. GENERATE Reviewer 2 — "The Theorist" (focus: contribution, positioning, theoretical depth, novelty)
  5. CALIBRATE recommendations independently (do not harmonize reviewers)
  6. COMPILE & SAVE to simulated_reviews.md with meta-reviewer summary and priority revision checklist

Input

$ARGUMENTS can be:

  • Empty — reviews the most recent draft (draft.md or paper.tex, whichever is newer)
  • File path to a specific manuscript (e.g., @draft_v2.md, @latex/paper.tex)
  • Venue name to calibrate review criteria (e.g., ICIS, MISQ, ECIS, NeurIPS)
  • "journal" or "conference" to adjust review depth and tone accordingly

Output

  • simulated_reviews.md — 2 complete reviewer reports + meta-reviewer synthesis
  • Each review: Summary, Strengths, Weaknesses, Minor Comments, Questions, Recommendation
  • Priority revision checklist (ordered by impact)
  • Ready for /respond-reviewers simulated_reviews.md to process feedback systematically