scientific-manuscript-review

• [Purpose](#purpose)
• [When to Use](#when-to-use)
• [Core Principles](#core-principles)
• [Workflow](#workflow)
• [Section-by-Section Review](#section-by-section-review)
• [Language Guidelines](#language-guidelines)
• [Guardrails](#guardrails)
• [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

This skill provides systematic review and editing of scientific manuscripts (research articles, reviews, perspectives) to improve clarity, structure, scientific rigor, and reader comprehension. It applies a multi-pass approach covering structure, scientific logic, language, and formatting to transform drafts into publication-ready documents.

Use this skill when:

• Drafting manuscripts: Research articles, short communications, review papers, perspectives
• Pre-submission review: Final polish before journal submission
• Revision cycles: Addressing reviewer comments, improving based on feedback
• Collaborative editing: Reviewing co-author drafts, mentoring student writing
• Self-editing: Systematic review of your own writing for blind spots
• Journal transfer: Adapting manuscript for different journal format

Trigger phrases: "manuscript review", "paper draft", "journal article", "research writing", "improve my paper", "reviewer feedback", "submission ready", "scientific writing"

Do NOT use for:

• Grant proposals (use grant-proposal-assistant)
• Recommendation letters (use academic-letter-architect)
• General emails (use scientific-email-polishing)

Seven foundational beliefs guiding manuscript review:

1. Clarity over cleverness: Scientific clarity is more important than stylistic elegance
2. Narrative shapes comprehension: Structure and story arc determine reader understanding
3. Audience dictates tone: Expert vs. general audience requires different depth and framing
4. Format signals credibility: Professional formatting reflects scientific rigor
5. Claims require evidence: Strong assertions need strong data and appropriate hedging
6. Each section has a job: Introduction sells the problem, Results show the data, Discussion interprets
7. Constraints shape structure: Word limits and journal guidelines determine emphasis

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```

Manuscript Review Progress:

• [ ] Step 1: Identify manuscript type and extract core message
• [ ] Step 2: Structural pass - map and evaluate overall organization
• [ ] Step 3: Introduction review - gap statement, focus, hypothesis
• [ ] Step 4: Results review - question, approach, finding, interpretation
• [ ] Step 5: Discussion review - synthesis, context, limitations
• [ ] Step 6: Scientific clarity check - claims, controls, hedging
• [ ] Step 7: Language polish - terminology, voice, jargon
• [ ] Step 8: Formatting check - journal compliance

```

Step 1: Identify Manuscript Type and Core Message

Determine document type (research article, review, perspective, short communication). Extract the ONE finding or message readers must remember. Ask: "If readers remember only one thing, what should it be?" See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#core-message-extraction) for extraction techniques.

Step 2: Structural Pass

Map overall organization against standard IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) or review structure. Check logical sequencing - does each section flow into the next? Identify unclear transitions or missing context. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#structural-assessment) for structure evaluation.

Step 3: Introduction Review

Evaluate using the Introduction Arc: Broad context → Narrow focus → Knowledge gap → Hypothesis/Objective. Check that gap statement is explicit and compelling. Verify ending with clear hypothesis or objective. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#introduction-arc) for template.

Step 4: Results Review

For each figure/table/experiment: Question addressed? → Approach used? → Key finding (with statistics)? → Interpretation (what it means)? Flag data-dump writing that lacks interpretation. Ensure findings build toward core message. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#results-paragraph) for results structure.

Step 5: Discussion Review

Verify structure: Revisit hypothesis → Interpret findings in field context → Place in broader literature → Acknowledge limitations → Suggest future directions. Check for overclaiming (speculation presented as fact). Ensure clear separation of data interpretation vs. speculation. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#discussion-structure) for discussion framework.

Step 6: Scientific Clarity Check

Run the clarity checklist: Claims supported by data? Quantitative details present (statistics, n values)? Controls adequately described? Interpretations appropriately hedged? Mechanistic explanations where needed? See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md#clarity-checklist) for full checklist.

Step 7: Language Polish

Ensure terminology consistency throughout. Remove or define jargon on first use. Prefer active voice when it aids clarity. Standardize abbreviations. Check for hedging language ("suggests" vs "proves"). See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md#language-guidelines) for specific guidance.

Step 8: Formatting Check

Verify compliance with target journal guidelines (word limits, reference format, figure requirements). Check section headings match journal requirements. Ensure abstract follows structured/unstructured requirement. Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_scientific_manuscript.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_scientific_manuscript.json). Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.

Introduction Structure

Goal: Convince readers the problem matters and your approach is sound

The Funnel Structure:

```

[Broad context - establish field importance, 1-2 sentences]

↓

[Narrow to specific area - what's been done]

↓

[Knowledge gap - what's missing, why it matters]

↓

[Your hypothesis/objective - what you will address]

```

Common problems:

• Gap statement buried or implicit (make it explicit: "However, X remains unknown")
• Too broad opening (readers don't need history of the universe)
• No clear hypothesis at end (readers don't know what to expect)
• Overlong literature review (move details to Discussion)

Results Structure

Goal: Present data clearly with interpretation, not just numbers

Per-paragraph/figure structure:

```

[Question this experiment addresses]

[Approach/method used]

[Key finding - with quantification]

[Brief interpretation - what this means]

```

Common problems:

• Data dump (listing results without interpretation)
• Missing statistics (p-values, n values, confidence intervals)
• Vague descriptions ("we found differences" vs "we found 3-fold increase")
• Figures not referenced in logical order
• Key findings buried in text (highlight important results)

Discussion Structure

Goal: Interpret findings and place in broader context

Standard flow:

```

[Restate main finding and hypothesis status]

↓

[Interpret key results in field context]

↓

[Compare to prior literature - agreements/disagreements]

↓

[Mechanistic implications (if applicable)]

↓

[Limitations - honest acknowledgment]

↓

[Future directions - what comes next]

↓

[Concluding statement - big picture significance]

```

Common problems:

• Overclaiming (data doesn't support conclusions)
• Repeating Results section (discuss, don't recapitulate)
• Missing limitations (reviewers will note them anyway)
• Speculation unmarked (clearly label "we speculate that...")
• No connection to field (discuss in isolation)

Active vs. Passive Voice:

• Use active for clarity: "We measured" not "Measurements were made"
• Use passive when agent is obvious or unimportant: "Samples were incubated at 37°C"
• Avoid dangling modifiers: Not "Having analyzed the data, the conclusion was..." but "Having analyzed the data, we concluded..."

Hedging Language:

• Strong data: "demonstrates", "shows", "establishes"
• Moderate confidence: "suggests", "indicates", "supports"
• Speculation: "may", "might", "could potentially"
• Match hedge strength to evidence strength

Jargon Management:

• Define on first use: "polymerase chain reaction (PCR)"
• Avoid unnecessary jargon when plain language works
• Field-standard terms don't need definition (DNA, protein, cell)
• Reader-appropriate: more definition for broad audience journals

Terminology Consistency:

• Pick one term and stick with it (don't alternate between "subjects", "participants", "patients")
• Create terminology table for complex manuscripts
• Check abbreviations defined before use

Critical requirements:

1. Preserve author voice: Edit for clarity, don't rewrite. Never invent claims or change meaning. Mark suggestions clearly when proposing new content.

1. Claims match data: Every conclusion must be supported by presented results. Flag overclaiming immediately. Speculation must be labeled.

1. Quantitative rigor: Statistics required for comparisons. N values for all experiments. Significance thresholds stated. Variability measures included.

1. Logical flow: Each section should flow naturally to the next. Transitions explicit. Conclusions follow from premises.

1. Appropriate hedging: Strong claims need strong evidence. Use hedging language proportional to certainty.

1. Consistent terminology: Same concept = same term throughout. Abbreviations defined before use.

Common pitfalls:

• ❌ Overclaiming: "This proves X" when data only suggests
• ❌ Missing context: Results without interpretation
• ❌ Buried lede: Important finding hidden in paragraph
• ❌ Inconsistent terms: Alternating between synonyms
• ❌ Dense paragraphs: Walls of text without breaks
• ❌ Vague descriptions: "Some increase" instead of "3-fold increase"

Key resources:

• [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md): Detailed review methods, structural assessment, language guidelines
• [resources/template.md](resources/template.md): Introduction arc, results paragraph, clarity checklist
• [resources/evaluators/rubric_scientific_manuscript.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_scientific_manuscript.json): Quality scoring criteria

Introduction checklist:

• [ ] Broad context establishes importance
• [ ] Narrows to specific problem
• [ ] Gap statement explicit ("However, X remains unknown")
• [ ] Ends with clear hypothesis or objective

Results checklist:

• [ ] Each experiment has question, approach, finding, interpretation
• [ ] Statistics present (p-values, n, confidence intervals)
• [ ] Quantitative descriptions (numbers, not "some/many")
• [ ] Figures referenced in logical order
• [ ] Key findings highlighted

Discussion checklist:

• [ ] Opens by revisiting hypothesis
• [ ] Interprets (doesn't just repeat) results
• [ ] Places in literature context
• [ ] Acknowledges limitations
• [ ] Suggests future directions
• [ ] Speculation clearly labeled

Typical review time:

• Quick review (structure + major issues): 20-30 minutes
• Standard review (full checklist): 45-60 minutes
• Deep revision (rewriting sections): 2-3 hours

Inputs required:

• Manuscript draft (any stage)
• Target journal (if known)
• Specific concerns from author (if any)

Outputs produced:

• Edited manuscript with tracked changes
• Commentary on major structural/logic changes
• Summary of key improvements made