chore(peer-review): integrate Aczel 2021 anti-reviewer-2 tone patterns

Adds references/aczel_2021_reviewer2_patterns.md with the verbatim
do/don't catalog and skill-specific transformation examples (medical
imaging context). Hooks into SKILL.md Tone Calibration and Phase 4
Self-QC so the audit runs on every draft, not only at user-prompted
review.

Phase 4 additions: 0 attitude markers, 0 personal attacks, ≥2 first-
person rapport, ≥50% hedged Minor requests, ≥2 named strengths in
General Comments, typo nitpicking ≤1.

Length proportionality rule: Minor Revision ≤600 words; Major
Revision ≤1000 words. Source: Aczel et al., RIPR 2021;6:13
(PMC8505560).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: Yoojin-nam

skills/peer-review/SKILL.md

@@ -123,8 +123,15 @@ After drafting, verify mechanically:
 1. **Numerical accuracy**: All cited numbers (sample size, p-value, AUC) match the manuscript.
 2. **Citation accuracy**: Section/Table/Figure references match manuscript.
 3. **Feasibility**: All suggested revisions achievable with existing data.
-4. **Word count**: Author section within 500-1000 words.
+4. **Word count**: Author section within 500-1000 words (Minor Revision ≤ 600).
 5. **Forbidden words**: No recommendation words (accept/reject/minor/major revision) in Comments to Authors.
+6. **Aczel tone audit** (`references/aczel_2021_reviewer2_patterns.md`):
+   - 0 attitude markers (reject/absurd/ridiculous/naive/oblivious/fail)
+   - 0 personal attacks ("the authors seem...", "the authors do not understand")
+   - ≥2 first-person rapport instances in General Comments / Closing Remark
+   - ≥50% of Minor requests use hedged forms ("I'd suggest," "could," "would help") rather than imperative ("must," bare "Please [verb]")
+   - General Comments names ≥2 specific strengths before listing concerns
+   - At most 1 typo/grammar Minor Comment, only if in formal section or systematic
 
 Fix all issues found, then present to user.
 
@@ -149,10 +156,12 @@ Fix all issues found, then present to user.
 
 ## Tone and Calibration
 
-- **Default**: Developmental, constructive tone
+- **Default**: Developmental, constructive, partner-voice (not gatekeeper-voice)
+- **Aczel 2021 patterns** (`references/aczel_2021_reviewer2_patterns.md`): avoid attitude markers ("reject," "absurd," "oblivious"), boosters, personal attacks on authors, vague dismissals, and typo nitpicking; prefer first-person rapport ("I appreciate," "I stumbled over"), hedged suggestions ("I'd suggest," "could," "would help"), and critique aimed at the work rather than the people. Apply throughout drafting, not just QC.
 - **Escalate tone** only when: clinical validity threatened, patient safety concern, severe data leakage, or reference standard fundamentally flawed
 - **Default recommendation**: Major Revision (unless issues are purely reporting/clarity → Minor Revision)
 - **Fatal flaw signal**: State in Confidential Comments which issue(s) represent fundamental design limitations, rather than recommending Reject directly
+- **Length proportionality**: Minor Revision ≤ 600 words; Major Revision ≤ 1000 words. Length signals difficulty — a Minor Revision review longer than the manuscript itself reads as Reviewer 2.
 
 ## Signature Review Patterns
 

skills/peer-review/references/aczel_2021_reviewer2_patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+# Anti–"Reviewer 2" Tone Patterns
+
+Source: Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. *Don't be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments.* Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021;6:13. PMC8505560.
+
+This reference codifies the linguistic patterns to avoid (and the partner-voice patterns to use) when drafting peer reviews. Apply during Phase 3 drafting and Phase 4 Self-QC.
+
+## Avoid (the "Reviewer 2" signals)
+
+| Category | Examples | Why |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Attitude markers** | "reject," "absurdly," "illogical," "naive" | Reads as verdict, not feedback |
+| **Boosters** | "utterly ridiculous," "completely fails to," "totally inadequate" | Amplifies negativity, no information added |
+| **Self-mention as gatekeeper** | "I cannot possibly imagine," "I refuse to believe" | Centers reviewer ego over the work |
+| **Personal attacks on authors** | "The authors seem oblivious to...," "The authors do not understand..." | Critiques the people, not the work |
+| **Vague dismissals** | "There is a vast literature the authors have ignored," "This is well-known" | Not actionable; offers no path forward |
+| **Third-person accusatory framing** | "The authors do not sufficiently explain..." | Distancing register feels like a verdict |
+| **Nitpicking every typo** | Listing 10 grammar errors as separate Minor items | Signals reviewer hostility, not care for the manuscript |
+| **Requesting non-existent studies** | "The authors should have done a multi-center RCT" | Asks for impossible work to justify rejection |
+| **Self-citation pressure** | "The authors should cite [reviewer's papers]" unless directly relevant | Ego-driven, recognizable to editors |
+| **Over-length reviews** | Multi-hour reviews with 20+ comments | Signals desire to overwhelm rather than help |
+
+## Prefer (the partner-voice signals)
+
+| Category | Examples | Why |
+|---|---|---|
+| **First/second person rapport** | "I appreciate the thoroughness," "I stumbled over some jargon," "I look forward to the next version" | Builds collaboration, not hierarchy |
+| **Hedged suggestions** | "I'd suggest," "It would help if," "Consider whether," "could be clarified" | Leaves authorial judgment intact |
+| **Critique the work, not the people** | "The paper's claim to originality is weakened by..." (not "The authors seem oblivious to...") | Protects the relationship while making the same point |
+| **Specific, actionable feedback** | Name the page/table/line/cell. Specify the missing citation. State the exact change requested. | Authors can act in one editorial pass |
+| **Balanced framing** | Acknowledge the work's strengths in General Comments before listing concerns | Reviewer credibility ↑; authors more receptive |
+| **Distinguish reflection from request** | Numbered Minor items = actionable; Closing Remark = reflection. Do not blur. | Authors know what to do |
+| **Calibrate length to severity** | Minor Revision → 1-2 sentences per comment. Major Revision → 3-5 sentences with suggested fixes. | Length signals difficulty; mismatched length confuses authors |
+
+## Worked transformations (Aczel verbatim examples + skill-specific)
+
+### From the paper
+
+| Problematic | Improved |
+|---|---|
+| "The authors seem oblivious to the extensive existing literature on this subject in the field of higher education, and thus claim their discoveries as original when they are not" | "The paper's claim to originality is weakened by its lack of reference to similar work done in the field of higher education" |
+| "The authors do not sufficiently explain themselves in the Methods section, which is jargon-filled" | "I stumbled over some of the jargon in your Methods section; I'd suggest that you adopt more plain-language explanations" |
+
+### Skill-specific transformations (medical imaging context)
+
+| Problematic | Improved |
+|---|---|
+| "Please harmonize this label." | "I'd suggest harmonizing this label across the table." |
+| "The authors must clarify..." | "It would help future readers if [X] were clarified." |
+| "The Conclusion is overstated." | "The Conclusion could be tempered to match the single-unit scope of the data." |
+| "Please cite the formula." | "Citing the specific formula (e.g., Graybill 1976) would make the calculation unambiguously reproducible." |
+| "The methods section is unclear." | "I found myself wondering which environment was used for which analysis — a one-line breakdown would aid reproducibility." |
+
+## Phase 4 Self-QC additions
+
+Add to the existing Pre-Submission QC checklist:
+
+- [ ] **Attitude marker scan**: 0 instances of "reject," "absurd," "ridiculous," "naive," "oblivious," "fail," "wrong"
+- [ ] **Personal attack scan**: No "the authors seem...," "the authors do not understand," "the authors are unaware"
+- [ ] **First-person rapport present**: At least 2 instances of "I" in General Comments / Closing Remark (not in attitude-marker contexts)
+- [ ] **Hedged language ratio**: At least 50% of Minor Comment requests use hedged forms ("I'd suggest," "could," "would help") rather than imperative ("must," "Please [verb]")
+- [ ] **Balance check**: General Comments names ≥2 specific strengths before listing concerns
+- [ ] **Length proportionality**: Minor Revision ≤ 600 words total; Major Revision ≤ 1000 words total
+- [ ] **Typo nitpicking limit**: At most 1 grammar/typo Minor Comment, only if in formal section (Acknowledgements, Declarations) or repeated systematically
+
+## When to escalate tone (override partner voice)
+
+Aczel's framework assumes the manuscript is fundamentally sound but needs revision. Escalate to firmer (still professional) language only when:
+
+- Patient safety concern (dose, drug error, PHI leak)
+- Severe data leakage (training-test contamination, label leakage)
+- Reference standard fundamentally invalid (no ground truth)
+- Citation fabrication or plagiarism suspected
+- Author conflict of interest undeclared
+
+Even at escalation, retain:
+- Specific evidence (page/line)
+- Hedged accusation form ("the data appear to suggest...")
+- Confidential Comments to Editor for the gravest concerns
+
+## Cross-references
+
+- Skill: `peer-review/SKILL.md` Phase 3 (Draft) and Phase 4 (Self-QC)
+- Companion: `peer-review/references/reviewer_profiles/{JOURNAL}.md` for journal-specific scorecard
+- Related: `~/.claude/rules/writing-style.md` (active voice, no "we believe/think")
+
+## Citation
+
+Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. Don't be reviewer 2! Reflections on writing effective peer review comments. *Research Integrity and Peer Review.* 2021 Oct 11;6(1):13. doi:10.1186/s41073-021-00117-3. PMCID: PMC8505560.