Q1-Reviewer-MCP
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Q1-Reviewer-MCPReview my manuscript for red flags and generate a decision letter."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
π― What Is This?
Q1-Reviewer-MCP is a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that turns Claude into a merciless academic peer reviewer. It reads your .docx manuscript, applies a battle-tested Q1 Red Flag Matrix, and produces a professionally formatted .docx decision letter β complete with color-coded severity ratings.
Think of it as having a permanently angry Reviewer #2 living inside your AI assistant, catching the exact issues that get manuscripts rejected from Nature, Cell, Plant Physiology, and other Q1 journals.
The Problem It Solves
Academic authors routinely receive "Major Revision" or "Reject" decisions due to preventable issues:
π΄ Overclaiming in the Discussion ("We proved that...")
π΄ Causal language without mechanistic evidence
π Weak knowledge-gap framing in the Introduction
π Insufficient biological replicates (n < 3)
π‘ Missing statistical test justification
π‘ No limitations paragraph
These issues are invisible to the author but predictable to an experienced reviewer. Q1-Reviewer catches them before submission.
β¨ Features
π¬ Q1 Red Flag Matrix
Embedded review criteria covering:
Overclaiming detection β flags "prove", "perfectly", "definitively" in biological contexts
Causal language audit β catches "X causes Y" when only correlation data exists
Introduction analysis β detects missing knowledge gap statements
Methodology audit β flags n<3 replicates, missing normality tests, absent controls
Discussion audit β catches new data, excessive speculation, missing limitations
Results verification β ensures claims reference figures/tables
π Professional Output
Decision letters that look like real journal reviews:
Color-coded severity β π΄ Critical (red), π Major (orange), π’ Positive (green)
Structured format β Editor Decision β Concerns β Revisions β Strengths
Times New Roman, justified β academic standard formatting
Issue-level guidance β THE FLAW β THE Q1 STANDARD β THE DIRECTION
Saved as
.docxβ ready to share with co-authors
π§ 3-Tier Section Detection
Handles any manuscript format:
Tier 1: Word Heading styles (most reliable)
Tier 2: Bold/uppercase keyword matching (no styles? no problem)
Tier 3: Full-text fallback (unstructured? we'll still review it)
π Smart Language Detection
Designed for scientific manuscripts:
Multi-section sampling for accuracy
Filters Latin taxonomic names (Arabidopsis thaliana, E. coli)
Won't mistake in vitro or et al. for non-English text
ποΈ Architecture
Q1-Reviewer-MCP follows the Tool-as-Data-Fetcher pattern β the MCP server is purely a filesystem operator. All analytical intelligence lives in the host LLM (Claude), guided by the Q1 Red Flag Matrix embedded in tool descriptions.
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β HOST LLM (Claude) β
β βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β
β β Q1 Red Flag Matrix β β
β β (Embedded in tool descriptions β auto-injected) β β
β βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β
β Reasons, analyzes, generates critique β
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ¬βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β MCP Protocol (stdio)
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββΌβββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β Q1-Reviewer-MCP Server (Python) β
β ββββββββββββββββββββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β
β β parse_manuscript_ β β generate_docx_report() β β
β β sections() β β Writes formatted .docx β β
β β Reads .docx β β decision letter to disk β β
β ββββββββββββββββββββ βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ β
β β
β π manuscript_v1.docx β π Q1_Review_Report.docx β
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββWhy this design?
π§ All intelligence upgrades automatically β when Claude improves, reviews improve
π° Zero server-side LLM costs β no API calls from the server
π§ͺ Easy to test β server only does file I/O
π Secure β no ports, no HTTP, no authentication (stdio only)
π¦ Installation
Prerequisites
Python 3.10+
Claude Desktop or Cursor (any MCP-compatible host)
Install from PyPI
pip install q1-reviewer-mcpInstall from Source
git clone https://github.com/ZaEyAsa/Q1-reviewer-mcp.git
cd Q1-reviewer-mcp
pip install -e .βοΈ Configuration
Claude Desktop
Add to your Claude Desktop config file:
Windows:
%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.jsonmacOS:
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"q1-reviewer": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "q1_reviewer.server"]
}
}
}Note: If
pythonisn't in your PATH, use the full path (e.g.,"C:\\Python313\\python.exe"on Windows).
Cursor
Add the same configuration in Cursor Settings β MCP Servers.
Verify Installation
After restarting Claude Desktop, you should see three tools available:
parse_manuscript_sectionsβ reads your manuscriptgenerate_docx_reportβ writes the review reportcompare_revisionsβ compares V1 review with V2 manuscript (Phase 3)
π Usage
Quick Start
Open Claude Desktop
Provide your manuscript path:
Please review my manuscript at:
C:/Users/me/Desktop/my_paper_v1.docx
Save the review report to the same directory.Claude will:
π Read and parse your manuscript sections
π¬ Apply the Q1 Red Flag Matrix
π Generate a detailed critique
πΎ Save a formatted
.docxdecision letter
What You'll Get
A professional .docx report containing:
Section | Description |
Editor Decision | Overall verdict (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject) |
Critical Concerns | π΄ Issues that would likely cause immediate rejection |
Major Concerns | π Significant issues requiring substantial revision |
Minor Concerns | Issues that should be addressed but aren't dealbreakers |
Recommended Revisions | Numbered action items for the author |
Positive Aspects | π’ Strengths of the manuscript (yes, we're fair too) |
Example Output
Each issue follows the structured format:
issue_1: Pervasive Overclaiming
THE FLAW: The manuscript uses "proved" and "definitively demonstrated" in the Discussion, which are absolute claims inappropriate for biological research.
THE Q1 STANDARD: Q1 journals expect hedged language that reflects the inherent uncertainty of experimental biology. Only mathematical proofs allow "prove."
THE DIRECTION: Replace absolute claims with "suggest", "indicate", or "support the hypothesis that."
π Q1 Red Flag Matrix
The review engine applies these rule categories:
Flags absolute language: "prove", "perfect", "completely", "definitively", "undoubtedly"
Context-aware: accepts in mathematical/structural biology proofs
Flags causal language ("X causes Y") when only correlation data is presented
Suggests appropriate alternatives: "indicate", "suggest", "demonstrate"
Detects missing knowledge gap statements
Flags overpromising scope (claims vs. actual methodology)
Checks for the critical sentence: "However, [specific gap] remains unknown"
Statistical test justification required
Normality test reference for parametric tests
Biological replicates: n β₯ 3 or power analysis
Negative controls in functional assays
Units on all numerical measurements
New data in Discussion (must appear in Results first)
Speculation depth limit (max 2 inferential steps)
Mandatory limitations paragraph
Data-claim alignment check
π Project Structure
q1-reviewer-mcp/
βββ src/q1_reviewer/
β βββ server.py # MCP server entry point
β βββ tools/
β β βββ parse.py # π parse_manuscript_sections()
β β βββ report.py # π generate_docx_report()
β β βββ compare.py # π compare_revisions() [Phase 3]
β βββ formatting/
β β βββ docx_builder.py # .docx formatting engine
β βββ utils/
β βββ section_splitter.py # 3-tier section detection
β βββ lang_check.py # Language detection
βββ tests/
β βββ test_parse.py # 34 unit tests
β βββ test_report.py # 15 unit tests
β βββ test_e2e.py # End-to-end pipeline test
β βββ fixtures/ # Test manuscripts
βββ config/
β βββ claude_desktop_config.json # Example config
βββ logo-q1-reviewer-mcp.png # Project logo
βββ pyproject.toml
βββ requirements.txt
βββ LICENSE
βββ CHANGELOG.mdπ§ͺ Testing
# Run all tests (49 tests)
python -m pytest tests/ -v
# Run specific modules
python -m pytest tests/test_parse.py -v # Section parsing tests
python -m pytest tests/test_report.py -v # Report generation tests
# Run end-to-end pipeline test
python tests/test_e2e.pyπΊοΈ Roadmap
Phase | Name | Status | Description |
1 | The Overclaim Detector | β Complete | MVP: parse |
2 | The Full Reviewer | π Planned | Full-section analysis (Intro, Methods, Results) with per-issue severity scoring |
3 | The Editor | π Designed | V1βV2 revision comparison with LLM-as-a-Judge scoring |
π§ Tech Stack
Component | Technology |
Language | Python 3.10+ |
MCP Framework | Official MCP Python SDK ( |
Document I/O |
|
Language Detection |
|
Transport |
|
Host Client | Claude Desktop / Cursor |
π€ Contributing
Contributions are welcome! Please:
Fork the repository
Create a feature branch (
git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)Run the tests (
python -m pytest tests/ -v)Commit your changes (
git commit -m 'Add amazing feature')Push to the branch (
git push origin feature/amazing-feature)Open a Pull Request
π License
This project is licensed under the MIT License β see the LICENSE file for details.
π€ Author
ZaEyAsa β GitHub
π Related Projects
Q1-Crafter-MCP β AI-powered academic writing assistant (the writing companion to Q1-Reviewer)
This server cannot be installed
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Latest Blog Posts
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/muslus/q1-reviewer-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server