QQsci-skill/references/review-audit.md

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.