@research-copilot/plugin 1.1.17 → 1.1.19

package/dist/skills/composer/references/writing_standards.md

@@ -0,0 +1,629 @@
+# Writing Quality Standards for Academic Papers
+
+This document defines quality evaluation criteria for systematic academic paper writing.
+
+## Overview
+
+Quality evaluation occurs at two levels:
+1. **Chapter-level quality checks** (after each chapter is written)
+2. **Final quality assessment** (before submission)
+
+---
+
+## Chapter-Level Quality Standards
+
+### 5-Dimension Assessment (4 points each, 20 total)
+
+After writing each chapter, evaluate against these 5 dimensions:
+
+#### 1. Argument Quality (1-4 points)
+
+**4 points - Excellent**:
+- Thesis/claim crystal clear
+- All supporting arguments logically connected
+- Premises fully justified
+- No logical gaps or unsupported assertions
+- Counter-arguments addressed where appropriate
+
+**3 points - Good**:
+- Clear main argument
+- Most support adequate
+- Minor gaps that could be strengthened
+- Some premises could use more justification
+
+**2 points - Acceptable**:
+- Argument identifiable but could be clearer
+- Multiple gaps in reasoning
+- Several premises need justification
+- Logical flow interrupted
+
+**1 point - Needs Major Revision**:
+- Unclear argument
+- Major logical gaps
+- Many unsupported claims
+- Disjointed reasoning
+
+#### 2. Citation Quality (1-4 points)
+
+**4 points - Excellent**:
+- All claims properly cited
+- Citations accurate and relevant
+- Key literature well-integrated
+- Citation density appropriate for section type
+- Format consistent throughout
+
+**3 points - Good**:
+- Most claims cited
+- Citations generally relevant
+- Minor formatting inconsistencies
+- Could integrate 1-2 more key sources
+
+**2 points - Acceptable**:
+- Some claims lack citations
+- Several citations not optimally relevant
+- Format inconsistencies present
+- Missing some key literature
+
+**1 point - Needs Major Revision**:
+- Many uncited claims
+- Citations poorly integrated
+- Major format issues
+- Key literature missing
+
+#### 3. Clarity & Readability (1-4 points)
+
+**4 points - Excellent**:
+- Prose clear and precise
+- Technical terms defined when introduced
+- Sentence structure varied and effective
+- Transitions smooth between ideas
+- No ambiguity in meaning
+
+**3 points - Good**:
+- Generally clear prose
+- Most terms adequately explained
+- Occasional awkward phrasing
+- Mostly good transitions
+
+**2 points - Acceptable**:
+- Some unclear passages
+- Several terms need better explanation
+- Multiple awkward sentences
+- Transitions need improvement
+
+**1 point - Needs Major Revision**:
+- Frequently unclear
+- Many unexplained terms
+- Poor sentence structure
+- Weak or missing transitions
+
+#### 4. Structure & Flow (1-4 points)
+
+**4 points - Excellent**:
+- Perfect logical progression
+- Each paragraph serves clear purpose
+- Subsections well-organized
+- Chapter fits outline specification exactly
+- Word count within ±5% of target
+
+**3 points - Good**:
+- Good overall flow
+- Most paragraphs purposeful
+- Organization generally clear
+- Minor deviations from outline
+- Word count within ±10%
+
+**2 points - Acceptable**:
+- Flow interrupted in places
+- Some paragraphs unfocused
+- Organization could be improved
+- Notable deviations from outline
+- Word count off by 11-20%
+
+**1 point - Needs Major Revision**:
+- Poor flow
+- Many unfocused paragraphs
+- Disorganized
+- Major deviations from outline
+- Word count off by >20%
+
+#### 5. Platform Style Conformity (1-4 points)
+
+**4 points - Excellent**:
+- Perfect match to platform writing style
+- Voice consistent with sample papers
+- Terminology appropriate
+- Format conventions followed exactly
+- Citation style matches platform
+
+**3 points - Good**:
+- Good style match
+- Minor voice inconsistencies
+- Terminology mostly appropriate
+- Format mostly correct
+
+**2 points - Acceptable**:
+- Recognizable platform style but inconsistent
+- Several voice/terminology issues
+- Format needs adjustment in places
+
+**1 point - Needs Major Revision**:
+- Poor style match
+- Wrong voice or terminology
+- Format significantly different from platform norms
+
+### Chapter Quality Gate
+
+**Passing Threshold**: ≥16/20 (80%)
+
+**If chapter scores <16/20**:
+- Identify specific dimension(s) scoring <3
+- Implement targeted revisions
+- Re-evaluate before proceeding to next chapter
+
+**Why This Matters**: Each chapter builds on previous ones. Low-quality chapters create cascading problems that are harder to fix later.
+
+---
+
+## Section-Specific Quality Standards
+
+### Abstract Quality (250-300 words)
+
+**Required Elements**:
+- ✓ Problem/puzzle statement (1-2 sentences)
+- ✓ Existing approach limitations (1-2 sentences)
+- ✓ This paper's contribution (2-3 sentences)
+- ✓ Main argument/findings (2-3 sentences)
+- ✓ Significance/implications (1-2 sentences)
+
+**Quality Checklist**:
+- [ ] Can be understood without reading paper
+- [ ] No citations in abstract (platform-dependent)
+- [ ] Avoids jargon or defines essential terms
+- [ ] Accurately represents paper content
+- [ ] Compelling to target audience
+
+### Introduction Quality (typically 15-20% of paper)
+
+**Required Elements**:
+- ✓ Opening puzzle/problem (hooks reader)
+- ✓ Background context (enough to understand problem)
+- ✓ Literature review (what's been tried, what's missing)
+- ✓ This paper's approach (clear statement)
+- ✓ Contribution summary (what's new)
+- ✓ Roadmap (chapter-by-chapter preview)
+
+**Quality Checklist**:
+- [ ] Problem significance clearly established
+- [ ] Gap in literature explicitly identified
+- [ ] Originality clearly articulated
+- [ ] Roadmap matches actual chapter structure
+- [ ] Appropriate citation density (15-25 citations typical for philosophy)
+
+### Main Body Chapters (60-70% of paper)
+
+**Quality Varies by Chapter Type**:
+
+**Conceptual/Theoretical Chapters**:
+- [ ] Key concepts clearly defined
+- [ ] Distinctions drawn where needed
+- [ ] Examples provided for abstract concepts
+- [ ] Connections to literature explicit
+
+**Argument Chapters**:
+- [ ] Premises clearly stated
+- [ ] Inference steps explicit
+- [ ] Objections anticipated and addressed
+- [ ] Conclusion follows logically
+
+**Case Study/Analysis Chapters**:
+- [ ] Case described in sufficient detail
+- [ ] Analysis systematically applied
+- [ ] Findings clearly presented
+- [ ] Implications drawn
+
+**Critical Review Chapters**:
+- [ ] Target position accurately represented
+- [ ] Criticism fair and well-supported
+- [ ] Charitable interpretation maintained
+- [ ] Alternative considered
+
+### Conclusion Quality (10-15% of paper)
+
+**Required Elements**:
+- ✓ Thesis restatement (in light of arguments)
+- ✓ Main findings summary
+- ✓ Significance reiteration (why this matters)
+- ✓ Limitations acknowledgment (honest assessment)
+- ✓ Future work directions (2-3 concrete suggestions)
+
+**Quality Checklist**:
+- [ ] No new information introduced
+- [ ] Addresses introduction promises
+- [ ] Acknowledges limitations without undermining contribution
+- [ ] Future work suggestions are specific and feasible
+- [ ] Strong closing statement
+
+---
+
+## Final Quality Assessment
+
+### 7-Dimension Evaluation (10 points each, 70 total)
+
+Before submission, evaluate complete paper on 7 dimensions:
+
+#### 1. Overall Argument Quality (1-10)
+
+**9-10 - Excellent**:
+- Thesis perfectly clear throughout
+- All chapters contribute to central argument
+- Premises fully justified
+- No logical gaps
+- Counter-arguments thoroughly addressed
+- Conclusion strongly supported
+
+**7-8 - Good**:
+- Clear thesis
+- Good chapter integration
+- Minor logical gaps
+- Most objections addressed
+
+**5-6 - Acceptable**:
+- Thesis identifiable but could be clearer
+- Some chapter disconnects
+- Several logical gaps
+- Some objections unaddressed
+
+**3-4 - Needs Revision**:
+- Unclear thesis
+- Poor chapter integration
+- Major logical gaps
+
+**1-2 - Major Revision Required**:
+- No clear thesis
+- Chapters poorly connected
+- Pervasive logical problems
+
+#### 2. Literature Integration (1-10)
+
+**9-10 - Excellent**:
+- 40-60 sources (typical for philosophy)
+- All key literature covered
+- Citations well-integrated
+- Literature critically engaged
+- Gap clearly positioned
+
+**7-8 - Good**:
+- 30-40 sources
+- Most key works included
+- Good integration
+- Critical engagement present
+
+**5-6 - Acceptable**:
+- 20-30 sources
+- Some key works missing
+- Adequate integration
+- Limited critical engagement
+
+**3-4 - Needs Revision**:
+- <20 sources
+- Major gaps in literature
+- Poor integration
+
+**1-2 - Major Revision Required**:
+- Insufficient sources
+- Key literature ignored
+- Citations merely decorative
+
+#### 3. Clarity & Accessibility (1-10)
+
+**9-10 - Excellent**:
+- Consistently clear prose
+- Complex ideas well-explained
+- Appropriate for target audience
+- No ambiguity
+- Technical terms defined
+
+**7-8 - Good**:
+- Generally clear
+- Most ideas accessible
+- Minor unclear passages
+
+**5-6 - Acceptable**:
+- Clarity inconsistent
+- Several unclear sections
+- Some inaccessible passages
+
+**3-4 - Needs Revision**:
+- Frequently unclear
+- Many inaccessible passages
+
+**1-2 - Major Revision Required**:
+- Pervasively unclear
+- Inaccessible to target audience
+
+#### 4. Originality & Contribution (1-10)
+
+**9-10 - Excellent**:
+- Major original contribution
+- Clear advance over literature
+- Significance well-established
+- Multiple innovative elements
+
+**7-8 - Good**:
+- Clear original contribution
+- Solid advance over literature
+- Significance demonstrated
+
+**5-6 - Acceptable**:
+- Identifiable contribution
+- Incremental advance
+- Significance could be stronger
+
+**3-4 - Needs Revision**:
+- Unclear contribution
+- Minimal advance
+
+**1-2 - Major Revision Required**:
+- No clear contribution
+- Replicates existing work
+
+#### 5. Methodological Rigor (1-10)
+
+**9-10 - Excellent**:
+- Method explicitly stated and justified
+- Consistently applied
+- Appropriate for research question
+- Limitations acknowledged
+- Alternative methods considered
+
+**7-8 - Good**:
+- Method clear and appropriate
+- Generally consistent application
+- Limitations noted
+
+**5-6 - Acceptable**:
+- Method identifiable
+- Some inconsistency
+- Limitations minimally addressed
+
+**3-4 - Needs Revision**:
+- Method unclear
+- Inconsistent application
+
+**1-2 - Major Revision Required**:
+- No clear method
+- Inappropriate approach
+
+#### 6. Structure & Organization (1-10)
+
+**9-10 - Excellent**:
+- Perfect logical flow
+- Optimal chapter organization
+- Proportions balanced
+- Transitions seamless
+- Roadmap followed exactly
+
+**7-8 - Good**:
+- Good flow
+- Sensible organization
+- Proportions generally balanced
+- Good transitions
+
+**5-6 - Acceptable**:
+- Flow adequate
+- Organization acceptable
+- Some proportion issues
+- Transitions need work
+
+**3-4 - Needs Revision**:
+- Poor flow
+- Questionable organization
+- Imbalanced proportions
+
+**1-2 - Major Revision Required**:
+- No clear flow
+- Disorganized
+- Severely imbalanced
+
+#### 7. Platform & Style Conformity (1-10)
+
+**9-10 - Excellent**:
+- Perfect platform style match
+- Format exactly correct
+- Voice consistent throughout
+- Citation format perfect
+- Length optimal
+
+**7-8 - Good**:
+- Good style match
+- Format mostly correct
+- Voice generally consistent
+- Minor format issues
+
+**5-6 - Acceptable**:
+- Recognizable platform style
+- Format needs adjustment
+- Voice inconsistencies
+
+**3-4 - Needs Revision**:
+- Poor style match
+- Format problems
+
+**1-2 - Major Revision Required**:
+- Wrong platform style
+- Format significantly incorrect
+
+### Final Quality Gate
+
+**Passing Threshold**: ≥56/70 (80%)
+
+**Score Interpretation**:
+- 63-70 (90-100%): Excellent, ready for submission
+- 56-62 (80-89%): Good, minor revisions recommended
+- 49-55 (70-79%): Acceptable, moderate revisions needed
+- <49 (<70%): Major revisions required
+
+---
+
+## Content Completeness Checklist
+
+Before final submission, verify all required elements present:
+
+### Structural Completeness
+- [ ] Abstract (250-300 words)
+- [ ] Introduction with all required elements
+- [ ] All outlined main chapters present
+- [ ] Conclusion with all required elements
+- [ ] References section formatted correctly
+
+### Content Completeness
+- [ ] All promises from introduction fulfilled
+- [ ] All claims supported by evidence or argument
+- [ ] All technical terms defined
+- [ ] All objections addressed
+- [ ] All limitations acknowledged
+
+### Citation Completeness
+- [ ] Every citation in text has bibliography entry
+- [ ] Every bibliography entry is cited in text
+- [ ] Citation format consistent throughout
+- [ ] All citations include necessary information (author, year, page if direct quote)
+
+### Format Completeness
+- [ ] Title page (if required by platform)
+- [ ] Section numbering consistent
+- [ ] Heading hierarchy logical
+- [ ] Figure/table captions (if applicable)
+- [ ] Appendices (if needed)
+
+### Submission Checklist (Platform-Specific)
+
+**PhilArchive/PhilPapers**:
+- [ ] PDF format
+- [ ] Abstract <500 words
+- [ ] Proper metadata (title, keywords, AMS classification)
+- [ ] Author information complete
+
+**arXiv**:
+- [ ] LaTeX or PDF format
+- [ ] Abstract <1920 characters
+- [ ] Proper category selection (cs.AI, q-bio.NC, etc.)
+- [ ] No embedded fonts issues
+
+**PhilSci-Archive**:
+- [ ] PDF format
+- [ ] Proper subject classification
+- [ ] Keywords provided
+- [ ] No copywritten material without permission
+
+---
+
+## Common Quality Issues and Fixes
+
+### Issue 1: Argument Gaps
+
+**Symptom**: Chapter scores low on "Argument Quality"
+**Diagnosis**: Logical leaps, unsupported premises, or missing steps
+**Fix**:
+1. Identify specific gap (which premise or inference?)
+2. Add explicit justification for that step
+3. Consider if additional sub-argument needed
+4. Re-evaluate argument flow
+
+### Issue 2: Insufficient Citations
+
+**Symptom**: Chapter scores low on "Citation Quality"
+**Diagnosis**: Claims without support, missing key literature
+**Fix**:
+1. Review each paragraph - which claims need citations?
+2. Search for supporting literature for uncited claims
+3. Check if key works from literature review are actually cited
+4. Aim for 10-15 citations per 1000 words (adjust by field)
+
+### Issue 3: Unclear Prose
+
+**Symptom**: Chapter scores low on "Clarity & Readability"
+**Diagnosis**: Complex sentences, undefined terms, weak transitions
+**Fix**:
+1. Break complex sentences into simpler ones
+2. Add definitions for technical terms at first use
+3. Add transition sentences between paragraphs
+4. Read aloud to identify awkward phrasing
+
+### Issue 4: Structural Problems
+
+**Symptom**: Chapter scores low on "Structure & Flow"
+**Diagnosis**: Poor organization, wrong proportions, deviates from outline
+**Fix**:
+1. Create reverse outline (what does each paragraph actually do?)
+2. Reorganize paragraphs for better flow
+3. Cut or expand sections to match target proportions
+4. Ensure chapter follows outline specification
+
+### Issue 5: Style Mismatch
+
+**Symptom**: Chapter scores low on "Platform Style Conformity"
+**Diagnosis**: Wrong voice, inappropriate terminology, format issues
+**Fix**:
+1. Review platform writing standards guide
+2. Check sample papers for voice and terminology
+3. Adjust sentence structure to match platform norms
+4. Verify citation format matches platform requirements
+
+---
+
+## Quality Improvement Strategies
+
+### Strategy 1: Iterative Refinement
+
+For chapters scoring 14-15/20:
+- Identify the single lowest-scoring dimension
+- Focus revision effort on that dimension only
+- Re-evaluate
+- If still <16/20, address next-lowest dimension
+
+### Strategy 2: Peer Review Simulation
+
+After writing each chapter:
+1. Read as if you're a skeptical reviewer
+2. List every question or objection that arises
+3. Address each in revision
+4. Re-evaluate
+
+### Strategy 3: Cross-Chapter Coherence
+
+After completing all main chapters:
+1. Create concept map across chapters
+2. Verify terminology consistent throughout
+3. Check that chapter N builds on chapter N-1
+4. Ensure conclusion addresses introduction promises
+
+### Strategy 4: Platform Benchmarking
+
+Before final evaluation:
+1. Re-read 2-3 sample papers from target platform
+2. Note their structural and stylistic patterns
+3. Compare your paper to these patterns
+4. Adjust to match where needed
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+**Chapter-Level Quality**:
+- 5 dimensions, 4 points each (20 total)
+- Passing threshold: ≥16/20 (80%)
+- Evaluate after each chapter before proceeding
+
+**Final Quality**:
+- 7 dimensions, 10 points each (70 total)
+- Passing threshold: ≥56/70 (80%)
+- Evaluate complete paper before submission
+
+**Iterative Improvement**:
+- Low-scoring chapters must be revised before proceeding
+- Final paper must meet threshold before submission
+- Use targeted revision strategies for specific issues
+
+This ensures systematic quality control throughout the writing process.