71 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
71 lines
2.3 KiB
Markdown
# Materials Manuscript Review Audit
|
|
|
|
Use this file for reviewer-style comments, pre-submission audits, novelty
|
|
checks, and claim-evidence risk review. If strongly related papers are
|
|
available, do not rely on standalone judgment; compare the manuscript with
|
|
those papers using `comparative-review-audit.md`.
|
|
|
|
## Severity order
|
|
|
|
1. Unsupported central claim or mechanism.
|
|
2. Missing control or unfair comparison.
|
|
3. Novelty unclear relative to prior materials.
|
|
4. Performance claim lacks operating conditions, statistics, or durability.
|
|
5. Structure-property relationship is asserted but not shown.
|
|
6. Section logic obscures the contribution.
|
|
7. Figure or caption problems.
|
|
8. Terminology, spelling, unit, or formatting inconsistency.
|
|
|
|
## Review questions
|
|
|
|
Central contribution:
|
|
|
|
- What exactly is new: composition, interface, morphology, processing,
|
|
mechanism, device architecture, or application demonstration?
|
|
- Would a reviewer see this as more than incremental optimization?
|
|
|
|
Evidence:
|
|
|
|
- Does each major claim have a figure, table, or method behind it?
|
|
- Are controls sufficient to isolate the claimed variable?
|
|
- Are mechanism claims direct, indirect, or speculative?
|
|
|
|
Benchmarking:
|
|
|
|
- Are literature comparisons under comparable conditions?
|
|
- Are units, test conditions, and sample dimensions clear?
|
|
- Is stability/reproducibility adequate for the claimed application?
|
|
|
|
Writing:
|
|
|
|
- Does the abstract state the bottleneck, design, evidence, and implication?
|
|
- Does the introduction narrow to a specific gap?
|
|
- Do results subsections open with claims rather than procedures?
|
|
- Does the discussion interpret instead of repeating results?
|
|
|
|
Figures and format:
|
|
|
|
- Does each figure answer one clear scientific question?
|
|
- Are panel labels, scale bars, axis labels, units, error bars, and statistical
|
|
descriptions complete?
|
|
- Are sample names, abbreviations, colors, and terminology consistent between
|
|
text, figures, captions, and methods?
|
|
- Are spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, and journal style internally
|
|
consistent?
|
|
|
|
## Output template
|
|
|
|
Use:
|
|
|
|
`Finding: ...`
|
|
|
|
`Why it matters: ...`
|
|
|
|
`Fix: ...`
|
|
|
|
`Suggested wording: ...`
|
|
|
|
Keep findings grounded in the user's supplied text and figures. Do not invent
|
|
missing experiments, but recommend controls or wording changes when evidence is
|
|
insufficient.
|