QQsci-skill/references/comparative-review-audit.md

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:

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.