The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when A journal or conference asked you to review a manuscript, and you need a fair, specific report built from your own reading notes.
- {{venue}}
- {{paper_summary}}
- {{review_notes}}
- {{criteria}}
- {{recommendation}}
Full prompt and why it works
Prompt
Help me write a peer review report for {{venue}}, so that the editor can make a decision and the authors know exactly what to fix. The judgments are mine: build the report from my notes and my summary of the paper, and do not add criticisms or praise I have not made. My summary of what the paper claims and how it supports the claims: """ {{paper_summary}} """ My notes from reading the manuscript (concerns, questions, strengths, with page or line numbers where I have them): """ {{review_notes}} """ The venue's review criteria or form, if any: {{criteria}} My overall recommendation: {{recommendation}} Use these sections: 1. Summary of the submission: what the paper claims and how it supports the claims, in 3 to 4 sentences, so the authors can see the paper was understood. 2. Overall assessment: the main strengths and the main problems in one paragraph, consistent with my recommendation. 3. Major concerns: numbered, each stating the problem, where it appears, why it matters for the paper's claims, and what would resolve it. 4. Minor points: numbered and short. 5. Confidential comments to the editor, only if my notes contain any, kept apart from the rest. Keep the report between 500 and 1,000 words. For example, the form of one major concern: "2. The analysis leaves out participants who dropped out before week 4 (p. 7), but the claim in the abstract covers everyone who enrolled. Please report results for all enrolled participants, or narrow the claim." This shows the form only; use my notes. A good report is specific, polite and useful to the authors even if the paper is rejected. Address the work, not the authors, and avoid sarcasm or remarks about their competence. Keep major concerns to those that affect the paper's conclusions. Do not ask for extra analyses or citations that my notes do not ask for, and do not suggest citing any particular paper, including my own. If one of my notes is too brief to turn into a clear point, list it at the end under "Notes to expand" instead of guessing what I meant. If the criteria are given, make sure the report covers each one, and tell me which ones my notes do not address.
Variables
- {{venue}}
- The journal or conference, for example "a journal in health services research".
- {{paper_summary}}
- The paper's main claims and methods in your own words. Check the venue's reviewer policy first: many forbid putting any part of a submission into an AI tool, so do not paste the manuscript itself.
- {{review_notes}}
- Your own notes from reading: concerns, questions and strengths, with page or line numbers.
- {{criteria}}
- The venue's review criteria or form headings, or "none given".
- {{recommendation}}
- Your recommendation, for example "major revision" or "reject".
Why it works
- Background facts. The report is built from your own notes and your summary of the paper, which keeps the judgments yours and the manuscript itself out of the tool.
- What to avoid. No extra analyses, citations or praise beyond your notes, and no suggestion to cite any particular paper.
- If unsure. Notes too brief to turn into a clear point go under "Notes to expand" rather than being guessed at.