# Critical Review Template

Use this template for academic peer-review style assessment focusing on claims, evidence, and contribution.

---

## YAML Header Template

```yaml
---
type: review
review_style: critical-review
paper_key: {ZOTERO_KEY}
paper_title: "{FULL_TITLE}"
reviewed_date: "{YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ}"
reviewer: "Claude Code"
status: completed
duration_minutes: {MINUTES}
tags:
  - "peer-review"
  - "{topic-tag}"
  - "{assessment-tag}"
links:
  - "[[{folder-name}/00-source]]"
---
```

Replace all `{PLACEHOLDERS}` with actual values.

---

# Critical Review: {PAPER_TITLE}

**Paper**: {Full Citation}
**Reviewed**: {Date}

---

## Summary

<!-- Neutral 1-paragraph summary of the paper -->
<!-- What they did, what they found, what they claim -->


---

## Claims and Evidence

### Main Claims

<!-- List the paper's main claims/contributions -->

1.
2.
3.


### Evidence Quality

<!-- For each claim, assess the strength of evidence -->

| Claim | Evidence Strength | Assessment |
|-------|-------------------|------------|
| Claim 1 | Strong/Moderate/Weak | ... |
| Claim 2 | Strong/Moderate/Weak | ... |
| Claim 3 | Strong/Moderate/Weak | ... |


---

## Theoretical Framework

### Underlying Assumptions

<!-- What assumptions does the paper make? -->
<!-- Theoretical, methodological, or conceptual assumptions -->
<!-- Are they justified? Stated explicitly? -->


### Theoretical Coherence

<!-- Does the theory hang together? -->
<!-- Are there internal contradictions? -->
<!-- Is it consistent with prior work? -->


### Alternative Frameworks

<!-- What other ways could this be conceptualized? -->
<!-- How might different theoretical lenses change the interpretation? -->


---

## Methodological Critique

### Internal Validity

<!-- Can we trust the causal claims? -->
<!-- Are there confounds, alternative explanations? -->
<!-- Is the design appropriate for the claims? -->


### External Validity

<!-- Can we generalize the findings? -->
<!-- To whom? To what contexts? -->
<!-- What are the boundaries of generalization? -->


### Construct Validity

<!-- Are they measuring what they think they're measuring? -->
<!-- Are the operationalizations appropriate? -->
<!-- Are there measurement issues? -->


---

## Interpretive Issues

### Over-claims

<!-- Where do they claim more than the data supports? -->
<!-- Examples:
- Causal language from correlational data
- Generalizations beyond the sample
- Definitive statements on uncertain findings
-->


### Under-claims

<!-- Where do they downplay important findings? -->
<!-- What do they miss or minimize? -->


### Missing Nuance

<!-- What complexity is being ignored? -->
<!-- What qualifications should be added? -->
<!-- Where is more careful language needed? -->


---

## Alternative Interpretations

<!-- What else could explain these findings? -->
<!-- Are there competing explanations the authors don't address? -->
<!-- How might the data be interpreted differently? -->


---

## Contribution Assessment

### Novel Contribution

<!-- What's genuinely new? -->
<!-- Conceptual, methodological, empirical contributions -->


### Incremental Value

<!-- How much does this add to what we already know? -->
<!-- Is it a major advance or a small step? -->


### Field Impact

<!-- How will this change the field? -->
<!-- Who will cite this and why? -->
<!-- What future research will this enable? -->


---

## Critical Assessment

<!-- Overall critical take on the work -->
<!-- Balanced evaluation of strengths and limitations -->


---

## Rating

**Scoring**: ★ = Poor, ★★ = Fair, ★★★ = Good, ★★★★ = Very Good, ★★★★★ = Excellent

### Rigor
★★★★☆

<!-- Justify rating -->


### Novelty
★★★★☆

<!-- Justify rating -->


### Impact
★★★★☆

<!-- Justify rating -->


### Writing Quality
★★★★☆

<!-- Justify rating -->


### Overall
★★★★☆

<!-- Justify overall rating -->


---

## Verdict

<!-- Accept / Minor Revisions / Major Revisions / Reject -->
<!-- With justification -->


---

## Required Revisions (if applicable)

### Major Revisions

<!-- Changes required before publication -->

1.
2.


### Minor Revisions

<!-- Smaller changes that would improve the work -->

1.
2.


---

## Optional Suggestions

<!-- Things that would be nice but aren't required -->

-
-


---

## Review Metadata

**Review Style**: Critical academic review
**Focus**: Claims, evidence, interpretation, contribution
**Depth**: Comprehensive
**Audience**: Peer reviewers, editors, researchers in the field
