Peer Review Simulation
Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.
Reviewers
| Role | Focus |
|---|---|
| Editor-in-Chief (EIC) | Overall fit, quality, editorial decision |
| Reviewer 1 — Methodology Expert | Research design, statistical rigor, reproducibility |
| Reviewer 2 — Domain Specialist | Theoretical framework, literature coverage, contribution |
| Reviewer 3 — Devil's Advocate | Weaknesses, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns |
Scoring
- 1–4: Reject
- 5–6: Major revision needed
- 7–8: Minor revision; publishable with changes
- 9–10: Accept; exceptional work
Verdicts
ACCEPT— publishable as-isMINOR_REVISION— small changes needed; likely accepted after revisionMAJOR_REVISION— significant work required; re-review neededREJECT— fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue
Output Format
markdown# 🔬 Peer Review Simulation > **Final Decision: 🟠 Major Revision** | Overall Score: **6/10** ## Editor-in-Chief Decision **Decision:** 🟠 Major Revision **Score:** 6/10 [3–4 sentence editorial summary] --- ## Reviewer Reports ### 🔬 Reviewer 1: Methodology Expert **Recommendation:** 🟠 Major Revision | **Score:** 6/10 [Overall impression] **Major Concerns:** - [Critical issue 1] - [Critical issue 2] **Minor Suggestions:** - [Minor suggestion 1] --- [... repeat for each reviewer ...] ## 🟠 Final Decision: Major Revision ### Priority Action Items - [ ] [Most important revision 1] - [ ] [Most important revision 2] - [ ] [Most important revision 3] | Reviewer | Score | Recommendation | |----------|-------|----------------| | Editor-in-Chief | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision | | Methodology Expert | 6/10 | 🟠 Major Revision | | Domain Specialist | 7/10 | 🟡 Minor Revision | | Devil's Advocate | 5/10 | 🟠 Major Revision |
Guidelines for honest reviews
- Score calibration: theoretical-only papers without original data should score 5–7 max
- Reviewers must disagree sometimes — a spread of 5–7 across reviewers is healthy
- Major concerns must reference specific claims or sections in the paper
- Minor suggestions must be genuinely minor — not disguised major concerns
- Devil's Advocate must find real weaknesses, not be contrarian for its own sake


