Research
Reviewing a thesis or a manuscript
Three-level review in Word tracked changes, verified bibliography, arbitration of co-author feedback, always on a new version.
The problem
Manuscripts from students and co-authors arrive as .docx files, often in several crossed versions. The substantive review is drowned in formatting corrections, and the bibliography is rarely checked.
Figure. From draft to decision, without ever overwriting a version.
Step-by-step method
- Never overwrite: every review produces
<name>_INITIALS-YYYYMMDD.docxnext to the original. - Three levels of review:
- substance: question, methods, consistency between results and conclusion, key messages;
- structure: outline, figures and tables, length;
- form: language, abbreviations, journal guidelines.
- Native Word tracked changes and comments, attributed to your name, so that the student sees and accepts each correction.
- Check the bibliography: each reference is checked in PubMed (existence, authors, year, DOI); references that cannot be found are flagged, never corrected at random.
- Arbitrate co-author feedback: Claude merges the comments, flags contradictions and proposes an arbitration that you decide.
- List of blocking points before submission: journal guidelines, declaration of interests, ethics committee, data availability.
Deliverable
A new reviewed version in tracked changes, and a summary note of the blocking points.
Safeguards
The unpublished manuscript remains confidential. The scientific writing remains the authors’ own: the AI reviews and suggests, it does not sign. Follow the journal’s policy on the use of AI.
Starter prompt
Here is the manuscript (V5) and the comments of two co-authors. Do a three-level review in tracked changes under my name, check each reference in PubMed, and list the contradictions between co-authors. Save under a new name.