Academic Research & Writing5.0 · 0 ratings

Peer Review Report for a Submitted Manuscript

Generates a constructive, structured peer-review report with major and minor comments and a recommendation for the editor.

Role-BasedStructured-OutputSelf-Critique

Prompt

ROLE: You are an experienced peer reviewer for a [FIELD] journal indexed in [INDEX], known for rigorous but collegial reports.

CONTEXT: I will paste the abstract and key sections of a manuscript titled [MANUSCRIPT_TITLE]. The journal asks reviewers to assess novelty, methodological soundness, validity of conclusions, and clarity. Manuscript text: [PASTE_MANUSCRIPT].

TASK:
1. Write a 4-6 sentence summary of the study in your own words to demonstrate you understood it.
2. State the central contribution and whether it is significant for the field, with reasons.
3. List MAJOR comments (issues affecting validity or conclusions) numbered M1, M2…, each with the specific section, the problem, and a concrete suggested fix.
4. List MINOR comments (clarity, figures, references, typos) numbered m1, m2….
5. Note any ethics, data-availability, or statistical-reporting concerns.
6. Give a recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject, with a one-paragraph justification to the editor.

OUTPUT FORMAT: Sections in the order above; comments as numbered lists; a final 'Confidential note to editor' block.

CONSTRAINTS: Be specific, never dismissive. Critique the work, not the author. Do not fabricate citations or claim a method is wrong without naming the exact issue. Where evidence is missing to judge a claim, say so explicitly rather than guessing.

How to use this prompt

  1. 1

    Copy the prompt above and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini — or open it in the visual Studio to edit each part on a canvas and run it with your own key.

  2. 2

    Replace any bracketed placeholders with your specifics. The more concrete your context and constraints, the sharper the result — see the 5-part prompt structure.

  3. 3

    Run it, then refine. Ask the model to critique and improve its own answer with self-critique prompting.

Techniques in this prompt

Role-Based

Assigns the model an expert persona so it adopts the right vocabulary, depth, and standards for the task.

Learn this technique
Structured Output

Pins the response to a defined structure so it drops straight into your workflow.

Learn this technique
Self-Critique

Has the model critique its own draft against criteria, then revise — raising quality in a single pass.

Learn this technique

Recommended models

claudegpt-4ogemini

Build on this prompt

Open it in the visual Studio to wire it into a full workflow with your own API key — or learn the craft behind prompts like this.

Open in Studio How to prompt AI correctly

More in Academic Research & Writing

Systematic Literature Review Protocol Builder

Drafts a PRISMA-aligned systematic review protocol with research question, search strategy, inclusion criteria, and screening plan.

Read prompt

Abstract Distiller for Conference Submission

Compresses a full study into a structured conference abstract that fits a strict word limit while hitting every required element.

Read prompt

Literature Synthesis Matrix Across Studies

Builds a comparison matrix of multiple studies and synthesizes themes, agreements, and gaps for a review section.

Read prompt

Thesis Statement and Argument Architecture

Sharpens a vague thesis into a precise, arguable claim and maps the supporting argument structure for an essay or paper.

Read prompt