# Comparative Review Audit

Use this file when the user wants a Nature-response-like review function before
submission, but the review must be grounded in strong related papers rather than
general judgment.

If the user provides multiple submission files, open
`submission-package-audit.md` first and use this file for the comparative review
layer inside that package audit.

## Core rule

Do not simply say whether the manuscript is good or bad. Compare it against a
small set of strongly related papers and identify what is missing, weaker,
unclear, or inconsistent.

Strong related papers should come from `literature-routing.md` and usually
include:

- same material or named composite
- same material family and same device/application
- same mechanism or characterization chain
- direct benchmark paper
- same target journal or close journal positioning

## Comparison dimensions

### 1. Story and novelty

Compare:

- how each strong paper states the bottleneck
- whether the manuscript states a sharper or weaker gap
- whether the claimed novelty is composition, interface, morphology, mechanism,
  device architecture, application, or integration
- whether the manuscript's novelty is visible in title, abstract, introduction,
  and first Results figure

Findings should say:

`Compared with [paper DOI/title], this manuscript lacks / weakens / obscures xxx.`

### 2. Evidence and missing experiments

Compare whether strong papers include:

- synthesis and composition confirmation
- morphology and interface evidence
- control samples
- mechanism diagnostics
- statistics and reproducibility
- durability, cycling, bending, humidity, temperature, or operational stability
- fair benchmark tables under comparable conditions
- supplementary controls or methods detail

Classify missing items:

- `critical`: likely reviewer blocker
- `major`: weakens novelty or mechanism
- `minor`: improves clarity or completeness
- `optional`: useful but not necessary for the target journal

Do not claim an experiment was done unless the manuscript provides it.

### 3. Figure audit

Check each figure and caption for:

- clear conclusion for the whole figure
- logical panel order
- panel labels present and consistent
- axis labels, units, scale bars, legends, and error bars
- sample names matching the manuscript
- image contrast and cropping problems
- repeated or redundant panels
- missing controls
- caption explains what is shown, not just technique names
- figure supports the claim made in the text
- resolution, font size, line width, and color consistency risks

Use this format:

`Figure issue: Fig. xxx | Problem: xxx | Comparison basis: strong papers usually show xxx | Fix: xxx`

### 4. Formatting and journal compliance

Check:

- title length and style
- abstract structure and word count if known
- heading hierarchy
- figure citation order
- reference style consistency if visible
- abbreviations defined at first use
- SI references and numbering
- units formatted consistently
- methods detail sufficient for reproduction
- data availability, author contributions, competing interests if required

If exact target-journal instructions may have changed, verify the current
journal page before final advice.

### 5. Spelling and terminology consistency

Check mechanically:

- spelling errors
- inconsistent sample names
- inconsistent material names and formulas
- inconsistent abbreviation capitalization
- hyphenation variants, e.g. `self-powered` vs `self powered`
- unit variants, e.g. `mA cm-2`, `mA/cm2`, `mA cm^-2`
- plural/singular drift
- tense drift between Results and Discussion
- inconsistent use of `show`, `demonstrate`, `suggest`, `indicate`

Prefer a terminology table:

| Term family | Variants found | Recommended form | Locations |
|---|---|---|---|

## Output format

Return a Markdown report:

```text
Comparative basis
- Strong papers used:
- Target journal:
- Manuscript materials/device:

Issue tracker
| ID | Severity | Area | Location | Comparison basis | Problem | Fix | Author input needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Missing evidence compared with strong papers
- ...

Figure and caption audit
- ...

Format and consistency audit
- ...

Spelling and terminology table
| Term family | Variants found | Recommended form | Locations |
|---|---|---|---|

Priority revision plan
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
```

## Word output boundary

For the Word manuscript:

- Add sentence-level citation suggestions only as DOI-only native comments.
- Do not put the full review reasoning inside Word citation comments.
- Broader missing-evidence, figure, format, spelling, and terminology findings
  should go in the Markdown reviewer report.