Reviewer-Facing Self-Review

Objective

Read the section as a skeptical reviewer and surface rejection risks before strengthening prose.

Five-Dimension Checklist

Dimension	Questions
Contribution	What new knowledge does this section make visible? Is the novelty type clear?
Writing clarity	Can a knowledgeable reader follow the paragraph roles, terms, and notation?
Experimental strength	Are performance or result claims supported by visible metrics and settings?
Evaluation completeness	Are baselines, ablations, metrics, and datasets sufficient for the claims?
Method soundness	Are assumptions, module motivations, and limitations explicit?

Claim-Evidence Map

Use this compact shape in responses:

Claim: exact claim or proposed claim
Evidence: citation / figure / table / metric / method section / missing
Status: supported / needs evidence / unsupported
Safe wording: bounded wording that fits the visible evidence
Missing evidence: concrete experiment, citation verification, comparison, or detail

Revision Decisions

• supported: keep the claim, but preserve setting boundaries.
• needs evidence: keep only as a weak or conditional claim, or request the missing anchor.
• unsupported: remove, soften, or mark as pending evidence.

Rejection-Risk Signals

• A major Abstract or Introduction claim has no experiment evidence.
• A method module has no motivation or ablation.
• Related Work omits the strongest comparator.
• Discussion repeats results without mechanism or limitation.
• Conclusion claims the problem is solved beyond the evaluated setting.