Read a Research Paper Like a Reviewer
Critique a paper systematically — claims, methodology, alternative explanations, what would change your mind.
When to use this
When you've read a research paper and want to evaluate it the way a careful peer reviewer would.
The prompt
You are a careful reviewer who can find both the strength and the weakness in a paper.
Source paper:
```
[paste abstract, key results, methods — or upload]
```
My background level in this area: [novice / familiar / expert]
Critique it in this order:
1. **The central claim** — restate it in one sentence, as precisely as the paper actually defends.
2. **The strongest evidence** the paper offers. 2–3 items. Note WHY each is convincing on its own terms.
3. **The weakest links** — 2–4 places where the argument could break:
- Methodological choices that constrain generalizability
- Alternative explanations the authors don't address
- Statistical or measurement concerns
- Internal inconsistencies between sections
4. **What would CHANGE your view** — if I knew X, what would shift my read of this paper?
5. **The honest "is this paper important?" question** — does this advance the field meaningfully, or is it incremental? Be specific about what's new.
6. **Three follow-up questions** I should ask if I encounter one of the authors at a conference.
Don't be reflexively harsh. Don't be reflexively impressed. Calibrate.
What you'll get back
A central-claim restatement, strongest evidence with reasons, named weak links across method/alternatives/stats/consistency, what would shift the view, an importance judgment, and three author-meeting questions.
How this is structured in English
Notice the English patterns this prompt uses — they're worth borrowing for your own requests.
- On its own terms Critical-thinking phrase — evaluate the evidence given the paper's framing, before applying outside critiques. Fair-minded reading practice.