163 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
163 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|