# Review Criteria Framework — Structured Review Criteria Framework

This document defines universal criteria for academic paper review and type-specific criteria differentiated by paper type. All reviewer agents share this framework.

---

## 1. Universal Review Dimensions

Seven core dimensions applicable to all paper types:

### Dimension 1: Originality — Weight 15%

| Level | Score | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Outstanding | 5 | Proposes entirely new theory/method/evidence that could change the field's direction |
| Strong | 4 | Has clear new insights or novel combinations, fills a specific research gap |
| Adequate | 3 | Incremental contribution, reasonable extension of existing knowledge |
| Weak | 2 | Highly overlapping with existing literature, new contribution unclear |
| None | 1 | Essentially repeats what is already known |

### Dimension 2: Methodological Rigor — Weight 25%

| Level | Score | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Outstanding | 5 | Impeccable research design, innovative methods executed flawlessly |
| Strong | 4 | Sound design, appropriate methods, minor room for improvement in execution |
| Adequate | 3 | Methods basically acceptable, but with some design or execution limitations |
| Weak | 2 | Methods have significant flaws affecting the credibility of conclusions |
| Unacceptable | 1 | Methods fundamentally unsuitable for answering the research question, or contain serious errors |

### Dimension 3: Evidence Sufficiency — Weight 20%

| Level | Score | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Outstanding | 5 | Rich, diverse, and persuasive evidence that exceeds expectations |
| Strong | 4 | Evidence sufficiently supports all major arguments |
| Adequate | 3 | Most arguments supported by evidence, a few need supplementation |
| Weak | 2 | Key arguments lack sufficient evidence |
| Unacceptable | 1 | Serious disconnect between arguments and evidence |

### Dimension 4: Argument Coherence — Weight 15%

| Level | Score | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Outstanding | 5 | Clear arguments, rigorous logic, elegant structure |
| Strong | 4 | Smooth argumentation, occasional minor logical leaps |
| Adequate | 3 | Basically coherent, but some inter-paragraph connections are unclear |
| Weak | 2 | Multiple logical breaks, readers have difficulty following the argument |
| Unacceptable | 1 | Confused argumentation, core claims cannot be identified |

### Dimension 5: Writing Quality — Weight 10%

| Level | Score | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Outstanding | 5 | Precise and fluent academic English/Chinese, a model of scholarly writing |
| Strong | 4 | Clear language, occasional minor imperfections that don't affect understanding |
| Adequate | 3 | Generally readable, with some grammar or word choice issues |
| Weak | 2 | Frequent language issues that affect understanding |
| Unacceptable | 1 | Language quality does not meet reviewable standards |

### Dimension 6: Literature Integration — Weight 10%

| Level | Score | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Outstanding | 5 | Comprehensive, contemporary, critically integrated literature with a compelling research gap argument |
| Strong | 4 | Covers major literature, with good integration and positioning |
| Adequate | 3 | Basic coverage, but with omissions or insufficient integration |
| Weak | 2 | Literature is outdated, incomplete, or merely enumerated |
| Unacceptable | 1 | Seriously insufficient literature review or irrelevant to the topic |

### Dimension 7: Significance & Impact — Weight 5%

| Level | Score | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| Outstanding | 5 | Could change policy, practice, or theoretical direction |
| Strong | 4 | Clear impact on a specific field or practice |
| Adequate | 3 | Has some academic or practical value |
| Weak | 2 | Limited scope of impact, mainly academic interest |
| Marginal | 1 | Difficult to see the significance of the research |

---

## 2. Paper Type-Specific Criteria

### 2.1 Empirical Research

Beyond universal dimensions, specifically focus on:

| Additional Dimension | Review Focus |
|---------------------|-------------|
| Research hypothesis clarity | Are hypotheses testable and consistent with theory |
| Variable operational definitions | Are independent/dependent/control variable definitions precise |
| Internal validity | Are confounding variables controlled |
| External validity | Generalizability of results |
| Statistical reporting completeness | Effect sizes, confidence intervals, assumption testing |
| Conclusion conservatism | Do conclusions exceed what the data supports |

### 2.2 Theoretical/Conceptual Paper

| Additional Dimension | Review Focus |
|---------------------|-------------|
| Conceptual definition precision | Are core concepts clearly delineated |
| Argument logic structure | Is the premise -> inference -> conclusion logic chain complete |
| Counterargument handling | Are possible opposing viewpoints considered and addressed |
| Theoretical novelty | Does it truly advance theoretical development |
| Testability | Can the theory generate testable propositions |

### 2.3 Literature Review / Meta-analysis

| Additional Dimension | Review Focus |
|---------------------|-------------|
| Search strategy | Is it comprehensive and reproducible (PRISMA compliance) |
| Inclusion/exclusion criteria | Are criteria clear, reasonable, and consistently applied |
| Bias risk assessment | Is bias risk of included studies assessed |
| Heterogeneity handling | Is statistical and conceptual heterogeneity appropriately handled |
| Synthesis method | Goes beyond simple vote counting to achieve critical synthesis |
| Publication Bias | Is publication bias assessed and discussed |

### 2.4 Case Study

| Additional Dimension | Review Focus |
|---------------------|-------------|
| Case selection justification | Why was this case chosen? What does it represent? |
| Theoretical vs convenience sampling | Is case selection theoretically grounded |
| Triangulation | Are multiple data sources used |
| Context description thickness | Is thick description sufficient |
| Analysis transferability | Are analysis results transferable to other contexts |
| Researcher reflexivity | Is the researcher's relationship with the case reflected upon |

### 2.5 Policy Analysis / Policy Brief

| Additional Dimension | Review Focus |
|---------------------|-------------|
| Policy problem definition | Is the problem clearly defined and evidence-supported |
| Stakeholder analysis | Are key stakeholders identified |
| Policy option analysis | Are multiple options proposed and compared |
| Feasibility assessment | Are policy recommendations practically feasible |
| Evidence quality | Are policy recommendations based on reliable evidence |
| Unintended consequences | Are unintended policy impacts considered |

---

## 3. Common Review Pitfalls

### Biases Reviewers Should Avoid

| Pitfall | Description | How to Avoid |
|---------|-------------|--------------|
| **Hypercriticism** | Overblowing minor issues, ignoring the paper's overall contribution | Affirm strengths first, then point out issues; distinguish major from minor |
| **Confirmation Bias** | Only finding evidence supporting pre-existing views | Deliberately seek the paper's merits and counterexamples to your own views |
| **Preference Projection** | Requiring authors to use "my method" rather than evaluating "the author's method" | Ask "can this method answer the question" rather than "what would I do" |
| **Paradigm Bias** | Using quantitative standards to judge qualitative research (or vice versa) | Use evaluation criteria matching the paper's research paradigm |
| **Prestige Bias** | Relaxing standards because of the author's institution or past achievements | Focus on the quality of the paper itself |
| **Novelty Bias** | Only valuing novel research, undervaluing replication studies | Acknowledge the important role of replication in science |
| **Length Bias** | Long paper = good paper, short paper = sloppy | Evaluate content density, not page count |
| **Language Discrimination** | Undervaluing research quality due to non-native language imperfections | Distinguish "language needs polishing" from "research quality is poor" |

### Principles of Constructive Feedback

1. **Specific, not vague**: "The causal inference in Section 3, paragraph 2 lacks control variables" is better than "methodology has problems"
2. **Problem + reason + suggestion**: Every criticism should include "what," "why," and "how to fix"
3. **Distinguish required from suggested**: Which changes are mandatory, which are "nice to have"
4. **Acknowledge uncertainty**: "I'm not sure whether this analysis accounts for X" is more accurate than "the author ignored X"
5. **Respect the author**: Even if paper quality is poor, the author still invested time and effort

---

## 4. Scoring Aggregation

### Weighted Total Score Calculation

```
Total Score =
  Originality (15%) +
  Methodological Rigor (25%) +
  Evidence Sufficiency (20%) +
  Argument Coherence (15%) +
  Writing Quality (10%) +
  Literature Integration (10%) +
  Significance (5%)
```

### Score-to-Decision Mapping

| Weighted Total | Recommended Decision | Note |
|---------------|---------------------|------|
| 4.5-5.0 | Accept | Very few papers reach this level |
| 3.5-4.4 | Minor Revision | Overall quality is good, minor revisions needed |
| 2.5-3.4 | Major Revision | Has potential but needs substantial revision |
| 1.5-2.4 | Reject (Resubmit) | Fundamental issues need rework, but topic has value |
| 1.0-1.4 | Reject | Not suitable for this journal or quality below standard |

**Important reminder**: Scores are only reference. The final decision also needs to consider:
- Whether any single dimension is particularly low (e.g., methodology score of 1), which may lead to Reject even if the overall score is passable
- Specific content of reviewer comments is more important than numbers
- Special considerations of the journal (special issue, field development needs, etc.)
