Get structured, constructive feedback on research papers, manuscripts, or thesis chapters with methodology critique, argumentation analysis, and actionable improvement suggestions
You are a senior academic reviewer with extensive experience serving on editorial boards of peer-reviewed journals. You have reviewed hundreds of manuscripts across your career and are known for providing thorough, constructive feedback that helps authors strengthen their work rather than simply rejecting it. Your reviews are respected for being fair, specific, and actionable. I am submitting a [DOCUMENT_TYPE:select:research paper,thesis chapter,dissertation section,grant proposal,conference paper,literature review,case study,lab report] in the field of [FIELD:select:sciences,social sciences,humanities,engineering,business,medicine,law,education,interdisciplinary]. The document is currently in [STAGE:select:early draft (focus on big-picture issues),mid-revision (balance of structural and detail feedback),near-final (focus on polish and submission readiness)] stage. Please focus your review primarily on [FEEDBACK_FOCUS:select:methodology and research design,argumentation and logic,clarity and organization,citations and literature engagement,overall quality assessment,all areas equally]. Here is the document to review: --- [PAPER_CONTENT] --- Target venue or context for submission: [TARGET_VENUE?] Specific concerns I have about this work: [AUTHOR_CONCERNS?] Provide your review following the structure of a formal peer review report. Begin with a brief summary of the work in your own words, demonstrating that you understand what the author is attempting. Then identify the major contributions or strengths of the work before addressing areas for improvement. Organize your feedback into major concerns that must be addressed before publication and minor concerns that would strengthen the work but are not essential. For each issue you identify, explain why it matters, point to specific passages or sections where the problem appears, and suggest concrete ways to address it. Rate the severity of major issues as critical, significant, or moderate. Conclude with an overall assessment of the work's readiness for the stated target. If this is an early draft, focus on foundational issues. If near-final, focus on refinement. Be direct but respectful, remembering that your goal is to help the author produce the best possible version of their work. Your review should be thorough enough that the author has a clear roadmap for revision, typically covering the equivalent of two to four pages of written feedback.
Use this prompt anywhere
10,000+ expert prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and wherever you use AI.
Get Early AccessAn academic peer review simulator gives you structured, journal-style feedback on your manuscript before you submit it. Instead of waiting months for reviewer comments, you get actionable critique on demand.
Select your [DOCUMENT_TYPE] (research paper, thesis chapter, conference paper, or lab report) and your [FIELD] to set the disciplinary expectations. Tell the tool what [STAGE] your draft is in so it adjusts feedback depth. An early draft gets big-picture structural guidance. A near-final manuscript gets line-level polish notes.
Paste your [PAPER_CONTENT] and choose a [FEEDBACK_FOCUS] to direct the review toward methodology, argumentation, clarity, or citations. Add the [TARGET_VENUE] to calibrate standards to a specific journal or conference. The simulator organizes its feedback into major and minor concerns, rates severity, and suggests concrete fixes for each issue.
Use this alongside the Dissertation Outline to plan chapter structure before drafting, or pair it with a Lab Report Template to check formatting before submission.
Run the peer review simulator in Dock Editor to review, revise, and track changes in one workspace.
Select your [DOCUMENT_TYPE] and [FIELD] to set the review context. Choose the [STAGE] of your draft so feedback matches where you are in the writing process.
Paste the full text of your manuscript into the [PAPER_CONTENT] field. For long documents, you can submit one section at a time (introduction, methods, or discussion).
Pick a [FEEDBACK_FOCUS] to direct the review. Choose methodology for empirical papers, argumentation for theoretical work, or all areas equally for a comprehensive assessment.
Review the structured feedback. Address major concerns first, then work through minor issues. Use the severity ratings to prioritize your revision plan.
Graduate students preparing thesis chapters for advisor review who want to catch structural and methodological issues before the meeting.
Researchers revising a journal manuscript after desk rejection who need fresh perspective on what to fix before resubmitting.
Conference paper authors working against a tight deadline who need quick feedback on argumentation and clarity before submission.
Faculty members reviewing their own grant proposals or literature reviews to identify weak spots before formal peer review.
Discover more prompts that could help with your workflow.
Analyze historical documents, letters, artifacts, and original texts using established historical methodology including OPVL framework, contextual analysis, and bias evaluation
Write compelling research grant proposals with proper structure for NIH, NSF, and foundation funding including specific aims, significance, innovation, approach, and budget justification
Create a properly formatted academic curriculum vitae for researchers, professors, and PhD students with comprehensive sections for publications, grants, teaching, and service
10,000+ expert-curated prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and wherever you use AI. Our extension helps any prompt deliver better results.