Peer Review Simulation

Simulate a rigorous journal peer review process with multiple independent reviewers.

Reviewers

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-is
• MINOR_REVISION — small changes needed; likely accepted after revision
• MAJOR_REVISION — significant work required; re-review needed
• REJECT — fundamental issues; not suitable for this venue

Output Format

# 🔬 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