peer-review

Featured

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

Code & Development 26,817 stars 2774 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 99/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Scientific Critical Evaluation and Peer Review ## Overview Peer review is a systematic process for evaluating scientific manuscripts. Assess methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards. Apply this skill for manuscript and grant review across disciplines with constructive, rigorous evaluation. ## When to Use This Skill This skill should be used when: - Conducting peer review of scientific manuscripts for journals - Evaluating grant proposals and research applications - Assessing methodology and experimental design rigor - Reviewing statistical analyses and reporting standards - Evaluating reproducibility and data availability - Checking compliance with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) - Providing constructive feedback on scientific writing ## Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics **When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.** If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams: - Use the **scientific-schematics** skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams - Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language - Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic **For new documents:** Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text. **How to generate schemati...

Details

Author
K-Dense-AI
Repository
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Created
7 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
Python
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Solid

peer-review

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

2,210 Updated 1 weeks ago
foryourhealth111-pixel
Code & Development Solid

peer-review

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

27,705 Updated today
davila7
Code & Development Listed

peer-review

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

335 Updated today
aiskillstore
Code & Development Listed

scholar-evaluation

Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly and research work. This skill provides structured evaluation methodology based on peer-reviewed research assessment criteria, en...

335 Updated today
aiskillstore
DevOps & Infrastructure Featured

scientific-critical-thinking

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.

26,817 Updated today
K-Dense-AI