Pre-submission referee report

review

writing

Ask a model to review your draft the way a demanding referee would, before a real one does.

Author

Affiliation

Francesco De Gasperin

INAF

Published

October 31, 2026

CATALOG = 'AI P001' AUTHOR = 'Francesco De Gasperin' MODEL = 'to be tested' TOOL = 'Any chat model with file upload' TESTED = 'not yet' QFLAG = 'L0' PHASE = 'Review' END

What is this header?

Draft

Prompt proposed, not yet tested. Example input and output will be added after testing.

Prompt

You are a referee for [journal]. Review the attached manuscript.

Write the report in three parts:
1. Summary of the claims, in 5 sentences, so I can check you understood them.
2. Major issues: anything that could change the conclusions (methods,
   statistics, missing comparisons, unsupported claims). Quote the passage.
3. Minor issues: clarity, figures, units, notation, references.

Be specific and do not praise. If you are unsure whether something is an
error, say so and explain what would settle it.

Example

To be added: a short excerpt of a real draft and the report obtained.

Known limits

The model cannot check numbers it cannot recompute. Treat silence on a result as “not checked”, not “correct”.
Do not upload manuscripts or proposals that are not yours to share.

How to cite

BibTeX:

@online{de_gasperin2026,
  author = {De Gasperin, Francesco},
  title = {Pre-Submission Referee Report},
  date = {2026-10-31},
  url = {https://astronomicalintelligence.org/prompts/pre-submission-review.html},
  langid = {en}
}

Cite this page as:

De Gasperin, Francesco. 2026. “Pre-Submission Referee Report.” Astronomical Intelligence, October 31. https://astronomicalintelligence.org/prompts/pre-submission-review.html.