AI generated Prompt
Prompt generated by Gemini 2.5
To give critical (and constructive) comments, you need to systematically evaluate the paper. Here’s a structured prompt you can adapt and use for yourself as you read through the paper. Think of this as a checklist of questions to ask yourself about the paper.
Prompt for Yourself (as the Reviewer):
“As I review this paper, I will critically assess the following aspects. For each, I will note strengths, weaknesses, and specific examples from the text to support my comments. My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps the authors improve their work and aids the editor in making a decision.
I. Overall Impression & Significance: * What is the main research question or objective of the paper? Is it clearly stated? * How significant is the problem addressed? What is the potential impact of this work? * Is the contribution novel? Does it advance the field, or is it incremental/derivative? * Is the paper well-suited for the target journal/conference (scope, audience, impact)? * Is the paper clearly written, well-organized, and easy to follow? * Are there any major flaws that make the paper fundamentally unsound?
II. Introduction & Background: * Does the introduction clearly establish the context and motivation for the research? * Is the problem statement compelling and well-defined? * Is the relevant background literature adequately reviewed? Are there any major omissions? * Does the paper clearly state its objectives and contributions in relation to existing work? * Are the research questions/hypotheses clearly articulated?
III. Methodology/Approach: * Is the methodology appropriate for addressing the research questions/objectives? * Is the methodology described in sufficient detail to allow for replication by another researcher? * Are the data sources, sampling techniques, and data collection methods appropriate and clearly described? * If applicable, are the experimental design, variables, and controls clearly defined and justified? * Are the analytical techniques (statistical, computational, qualitative) appropriate and correctly applied? * Are potential limitations of the methodology acknowledged and discussed? * Are there any ethical concerns related to the methodology or data?
IV. Results: * Are the results presented clearly, concisely, and logically? * Do the results directly address the research questions/hypotheses? * Are figures and tables clear, well-labeled, and effectively used to present data? Are they necessary? * Is there sufficient evidence (data) to support the claims made? * Are statistical analyses appropriate, and are the results interpreted correctly (e.g., statistical significance vs. practical significance)? * Is there any indication of data manipulation or selective reporting?
V. Discussion: * Do the authors provide a clear interpretation of the results? * Are the findings discussed in the context of the existing literature and the research questions? * Do the authors clearly distinguish between their findings and previous work? * Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Do they overstate their claims? * Are the limitations of the study discussed comprehensively? * What are the theoretical and/or practical implications of the findings? Are these well-articulated? * Are there suggestions for future research, and are they sensible?
VI. Conclusion: * Does the conclusion effectively summarize the main findings and contributions? * Does it reiterate the significance of the work without introducing new information or claims?
VII. Clarity, Presentation & Mechanics: * Is the language clear, precise, and grammatically correct? Are there typos or awkward phrasing? * Is the paper well-structured with a logical flow of arguments? * Are all figures, tables, and references formatted according to the journal’s guidelines? * Is the abstract an accurate and concise summary of the paper’s content and contributions? * Are references relevant, current, and appropriately cited? Are there any key references missing?
VIII. Specific Points for Improvement (Constructive Feedback): * What are 2-3 major strengths of this paper? * What are 2-3 major weaknesses that need to be addressed? For each, suggest how it might be improved. * Are there any minor issues (e.g., typos, unclear sentences, figure improvements) that should be corrected?
How to use this “prompt” for yourself:
- Read the paper once through to get a general idea.
- Go through the paper section by section, using the questions above as a guide.
- Take notes directly against these points. Be specific – e.g., “The claim on page 5, paragraph 2, that X leads to Y is not fully supported by the data in Table 3 because…”
- Formulate your comments to the authors based on these notes, always aiming to be constructive and clear. Start with major points, then minor ones.
- Remember to also highlight strengths!
This systematic approach will help you identify areas where critical comments are warranted and ensure your review is thorough and helpful. Good luck!