Revision, Review & Submission

You are Reviewer 2 for [TARGET JOURNAL], a [Q1/Q2] journal in [FIELD]. You are rigorous but fair.

Here is the full manuscript: [PASTE]

Produce a formal review:
1. Summary of the paper in your own words (so I can see if my message came across).
2. Recommendation: reject / major revision / minor revision / accept, and why.
3. Major concerns, numbered, each tied to a specific section and line of reasoning.
4. Minor concerns, numbered.
5. The three questions you would ask the authors that they will find hardest to answer.
Do not be encouraging. Assume the paper will be rejected unless it earns otherwise.

The summary in point 1 is diagnostic: if the AI misunderstands your contribution, so will a human reviewer.

Here is my manuscript: [PASTE]

Produce a reverse outline: for every paragraph, give me
paragraph number | section | its single main claim in <=12 words | the evidence it uses.

Then tell me:
- where two paragraphs make the same claim,
- where a claim appears with no evidence,
- where the logical order jumps,
- whether my Conclusion answers the question my Introduction promised.

Reverse outlining exposes structural problems that line-editing can never fix. It is the highest-leverage revision technique there is.

My abstract: [PASTE]
Journals I am considering: [LIST 3]

For each journal, using its published aims and scope:
1. Rate the fit 1-10 and justify it against my abstract's topic, method and contribution type.
2. Identify what I would need to reframe or add for that journal.
3. Note the typical article structure and word limit and where my draft breaks it.
Flag anything you are uncertain about rather than guessing. I will verify on the journal site.

Scope mismatch causes a large share of desk rejections. The 'flag uncertainty' clause keeps the model from inventing journal policies.

Write a cover letter to the Editor-in-Chief of [JOURNAL] for my manuscript titled "[TITLE]".

Include: the specific problem addressed, what is new, why it fits this journal's scope and readership, key finding with one number, ethics approval and conflicts, and the standard originality statement.
Maximum 300 words. Formal, specific, no adjectives like groundbreaking or novel-and-exciting.
Then list what I must fill in myself before sending.

Editors screen the cover letter first. Specificity plus brevity outperforms enthusiasm every time.

Here are the reviewer comments: [PASTE]
Here is my manuscript: [PASTE OR SUMMARISE]

For each comment:
1. Classify it: factual error / misreading by the reviewer / legitimate weakness / request beyond scope.
2. Draft a courteous point-by-point response in the format: comment, our response, change made, location in revised manuscript.
3. Where I should respectfully disagree, draft the argument with the evidence I would need.
Keep the tone professional and non-defensive. Never concede a point that is factually wrong.

Classifying before responding stops the common mistake of over-conceding to a reviewer who simply misread you.

Here is a section of my manuscript that I suspect reads as AI-generated: [PASTE]

1. Identify the specific patterns that make it sound AI-written: empty intensifiers, generic transitions, three-part lists for rhythm, hedging stacked twice, filler phrases like "it is important to note", and vague attributions like "studies show".
2. Quote each problematic sentence or phrase and explain why it flags as machine-written.
3. Rewrite the section in my own academic voice: keep my terminology, preserve my hedging strength, and make the argument flow like a human researcher explaining it to a colleague.
4. Suggest one or two personal touches I could add: a real example from my data, a sentence that admits uncertainty, or a disciplinary aside that an AI would not invent.

Do not make it more formal. Make it more authentically mine.

AI detectors score patterns, not misconduct. The fix is not paraphrasing tricks; it is replacing generic machine rhythms with your own evidence, examples and voice.