@research-copilot/plugin 1.1.17 → 1.1.19

package/dist/skills/strategist/references/search_strategy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,459 @@
+# Literature Search Strategy
+
+This document provides systematic strategies for comprehensive literature search and gap identification.
+
+## Overview
+
+Effective literature search for academic papers requires:
+1. **Multi-dimensional search** (keywords, time, diversity)
+2. **Iterative refinement** (3 rounds minimum)
+3. **Quality filtering** (relevance + authority)
+4. **Gap mapping** (identify white spaces)
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Keyword Generation
+
+### Step 1: Extract Core Concepts
+From user's research idea, identify:
+- **Primary concepts** (2-3): The main theoretical constructs
+- **Secondary concepts** (2-3): Supporting or related ideas
+- **Methodological terms** (1-2): Approach or framework
+
+**Example**:
+- Research idea: "Self-continuity through narrative compression during sleep"
+- Primary: self-continuity, narrative compression
+- Secondary: sleep, memory consolidation, personal identity
+- Method: phenomenological analysis, computational metaphor
+
+### Step 2: Generate Keyword Combinations
+Create 10-15 search strings combining:
+- Concept + concept
+- Concept + method
+- Concept + domain
+
+**Example combinations**:
+1. "self-continuity" AND "sleep"
+2. "narrative compression" AND "memory"
+3. "personal identity" AND "sleep-wake cycle"
+4. "phenomenological self" AND "consciousness"
+5. "autobiographical memory" AND "consolidation"
+...
+
+### Step 3: Include Synonyms and Variants
+For each core concept, add:
+- Disciplinary variants (philosophical vs. psychological terms)
+- Historical terms (older vs. current terminology)
+- Related concepts (broader/narrower)
+
+**Example**:
+- self-continuity → personal identity, diachronic self, narrative self
+- sleep → periodic disruption, consciousness gaps, sleep-wake cycles
+- compression → consolidation, integration, synthesis
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Multi-Round Search
+
+### Round 1: Direct Search (Primary Literature)
+
+**Goal**: Find 30-50 directly relevant papers
+
+**Search Tools**:
+- Use Exa MCP for semantic search
+- Use Tavily MCP for web search
+- Search Google Scholar / PhilPapers / arXiv as needed
+
+**Process**:
+```markdown
+For each of 10-15 keyword combinations:
+1. Run search with time filter (last 5 years)
+2. Collect top 5 results per query
+3. Total: 50-75 candidate papers
+
+Quality filter:
+- Read abstracts
+- Check relevance (must score ≥7/10)
+- Retain top 30-50 papers
+```
+
+**Relevance Scoring Guide** (0-10):
+- 10: Exact topic match, same methodology
+- 9: Topic match, different angle
+- 8: Core concept match, different context
+- 7: Related concept, applicable methods
+- 6: Adjacent field, partial relevance
+- 5: Tangential relevance
+- <5: Exclude
+
+### Round 2: Expanded Search (Adjacent Literature)
+
+**Goal**: Find 10-20 papers from adjacent fields
+
+**Process**:
+```markdown
+1. Extract new keywords from Round 1 papers:
+   - Check "keywords" sections
+   - Note frequently cited concepts
+   - Identify theoretical frameworks used
+
+2. Search adjacent fields:
+   - If philosophy → check cognitive science
+   - If neuroscience → check philosophy of mind
+   - If AI → check consciousness studies
+
+3. Collect 10-20 bridging papers
+```
+
+**Why Expanded Search**:
+- Discover interdisciplinary connections
+- Find alternative approaches to similar problems
+- Identify potential theoretical resources
+
+### Round 3: Classic Literature (Foundational Works)
+
+**Goal**: Identify 5-10 highly-cited foundational papers
+
+**Process**:
+```markdown
+1. Identify classics from Round 1-2 citations:
+   - Look for papers cited in >50% of collected papers
+   - Note "seminal works" mentioned
+
+2. Citation tracking:
+   - Use Google Scholar "Cited by" counts
+   - Target papers with >100 citations
+   - Focus on works from 1990-2015 (established but relevant)
+
+3. Verify foundational status:
+   - Check if it introduced key concepts
+   - Assess if it shaped the field
+   - Confirm current relevance
+```
+
+**Selection Criteria**:
+- Citation count >100 (adjust for field size)
+- Still cited in recent papers (2020+)
+- Introduced terminology/concepts still in use
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Gap Identification
+
+### Method 1: Concept Mapping
+
+**Process**:
+```markdown
+1. Create 2D concept map:
+   - X-axis: Concepts (from your keywords)
+   - Y-axis: Methods/Approaches
+
+2. Plot each collected paper on the map
+
+3. Identify white spaces:
+   - Concept combinations not explored
+   - Methods not applied to certain concepts
+   - Questions raised but not answered
+```
+
+**Example Map**:
+```
+              | Phenomenology | Cognitive Science | Computational |
+--------------|---------------|-------------------|---------------|
+Self          |   ████████    |     ████         |      ██       |
+Sleep         |   ████        |     ██████       |      █        |
+Compression   |   ██          |     ███          |               | ← GAP!
+```
+
+### Method 2: Problem-Solution Analysis
+
+**Process**:
+```markdown
+1. List problems addressed in literature:
+   - What questions do existing papers ask?
+   - What puzzles do they try to solve?
+
+2. List solutions proposed:
+   - What answers/theories do they offer?
+   - What limitations do they acknowledge?
+
+3. Identify unsolved problems:
+   - Problems mentioned but not addressed
+   - Solutions that create new problems
+   - Acknowledged limitations
+```
+
+**Gap Types**:
+- **Empty gaps**: Problem identified but no solutions attempted
+- **Partial gaps**: Solutions proposed but incomplete/unsatisfactory
+- **Controversy gaps**: Competing solutions, no consensus
+
+### Method 3: Temporal Gap Analysis
+
+**Process**:
+```markdown
+1. Plot papers by publication year
+
+2. Identify research waves:
+   - When did interest surge?
+   - When did it decline?
+   - Recent vs. historical focus?
+
+3. Spot temporal gaps:
+   - Topics once active but abandoned
+   - Emerging questions (last 2 years)
+   - Due for re-examination with new methods
+```
+
+**Indicators of Good Temporal Gaps**:
+- Last major work >5 years ago (ripe for update)
+- New methods available (AI, neuroscience tools)
+- Recent empirical findings enabling new theories
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: Originality Assessment
+
+### Step 1: Similarity Matrix
+
+Create table comparing user's idea with top 10 most similar papers:
+
+```markdown
+| Paper | Topic Overlap | Method Overlap | Conclusion Overlap | Overall Similarity |
+|-------|---------------|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|
+| A     | 90%          | 70%           | 60%               | 73% (High)         |
+| B     | 80%          | 50%           | 40%               | 57% (Medium)       |
+| C     | 70%          | 80%           | 30%               | 60% (Medium)       |
+...
+```
+
+**Interpretation**:
+- >80%: Too similar, needs repositioning
+- 50-80%: Moderate overlap, emphasize differences
+- <50%: Good originality
+
+### Step 2: Innovation Type Classification
+
+Identify which type(s) of innovation apply:
+
+1. **Methodological Innovation**:
+   - Applying new method to known problem
+   - Example: Using predictive coding to explain self-continuity
+
+2. **Theoretical Innovation**:
+   - New framework or model
+   - Example: Compression metaphor for narrative self
+
+3. **Application Innovation**:
+   - Existing theory to new domain
+   - Example: Memory consolidation theory applied to philosophy of self
+
+4. **Integrative Innovation**:
+   - Synthesizing previously separate literatures
+   - Example: Combining phenomenology + cognitive neuroscience
+
+**Requirement**: Must identify at least 2 innovation types for sufficient originality
+
+### Step 3: Impact Prediction
+
+**Scoring Criteria** (1-10 scale):
+
+**Gap Importance** (5 points):
+- 5: Core unsolved problem in the field
+- 4: Significant but not central problem
+- 3: Interesting niche problem
+- 2: Minor technical issue
+- 1: Trivial question
+
+**Generalizability** (3 points):
+- 3: Widely applicable across domains
+- 2: Applicable within subdiscipline
+- 1: Narrow case-specific
+
+**Explanatory Power** (2 points):
+- 2: Resolves multiple existing puzzles
+- 1: Clarifies one specific issue
+- 0: Purely descriptive
+
+**Total Score Interpretation**:
+- 9-10: High impact potential (major contribution)
+- 7-8: Good impact (solid contribution)
+- 5-6: Moderate impact (acceptable)
+- <5: Low impact (reconsider direction)
+
+---
+
+## Phase 5: Evidence Documentation
+
+### Gap Evidence Package
+
+For each identified gap, create evidence file:
+
+```markdown
+## Gap: [Title]
+
+### Definition
+[Clear description of what's missing]
+
+### Evidence from Literature
+1. Paper A (Author, Year): "[Quote showing gap]"
+   - Context: [Why this matters]
+
+2. Paper B (Author, Year): "[Quote acknowledging limitation]"
+   - Context: [What they couldn't address]
+
+3. Paper C (Author, Year): "[Quote raising question]"
+   - Context: [Unanswered question]
+
+[Minimum 3 pieces of evidence per gap]
+
+### Why This Gap Matters
+[Significance explanation]
+
+### Feasibility for User
+[Can user address this with their approach?]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Search Quality Checklist
+
+Before concluding literature search, verify:
+
+**Coverage**:
+- ✓ All core concepts covered (each has 5-10 papers)
+- ✓ Time span adequate (5 years + classics)
+- ✓ Multiple disciplines searched (if applicable)
+- ✓ Total papers ≥20 (minimum)
+
+**Quality**:
+- ✓ Average relevance ≥7.5/10
+- ✓ At least 5 high-citation papers (>100 cites)
+- ✓ Recent papers (last 2 years) included
+- ✓ Foundational works included
+
+**Gap Identification**:
+- ✓ At least 3 distinct gaps identified
+- ✓ Each gap has 3+ pieces of evidence
+- ✓ Gaps are feasible to address
+- ✓ Gaps are significant (not trivial)
+
+**Originality**:
+- ✓ Similarity analysis completed (top 10 papers)
+- ✓ Innovation types identified (≥2)
+- ✓ Impact score calculated (≥7/10)
+- ✓ Justification documented (300+ words)
+
+---
+
+## Common Pitfalls and Solutions
+
+### Pitfall 1: Search Too Narrow
+**Symptom**: <15 relevant papers found
+**Solution**:
+- Broaden keywords (use synonyms)
+- Extend time range
+- Include adjacent disciplines
+
+### Pitfall 2: Search Too Broad
+**Symptom**: >100 papers, can't filter effectively
+**Solution**:
+- Tighten relevance criteria (raise threshold to 8/10)
+- Focus on most recent papers
+- Prioritize by citation count
+
+### Pitfall 3: Missing Classics
+**Symptom**: No papers >10 years old
+**Solution**:
+- Check "most cited" on Google Scholar
+- Look at textbook references
+- Ask: "What are the foundational works in this area?"
+
+### Pitfall 4: Echo Chamber
+**Symptom**: All papers from same research group/school
+**Solution**:
+- Deliberately search for alternative perspectives
+- Check papers that cite different theoretical frameworks
+- Include critics of main approach
+
+### Pitfall 5: False Gaps
+**Symptom**: "Gap" is actually well-addressed, just using different terminology
+**Solution**:
+- Search with synonym keywords
+- Check related disciplines
+- Verify gap with evidence (3+ citations)
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Skill Workflow
+
+This search strategy supports:
+
+**Phase 2.1** (Gap Identification):
+- Use Rounds 1-3 to build literature base
+- Apply Phase 3 methods to identify gaps
+- Document evidence per Phase 5
+
+**Phase 2.2** (Originality Assessment):
+- Use Phase 4 similarity analysis
+- Classify innovation types
+- Calculate impact prediction
+
+**Quality Gates**:
+- Gate 2 requires passing the Search Quality Checklist
+- All gaps must have evidence packages
+- Originality assessment must be documented
+
+---
+
+## Example: Complete Search for "Self-Continuity and Sleep"
+
+### Round 1: Direct Search
+**Keywords used**: 15 combinations (self-continuity + sleep, narrative self + memory, etc.)
+**Papers found**: 45 candidates
+**After filtering**: 25 papers retained (relevance ≥7/10)
+
+### Round 2: Expanded Search
+**New keywords**: phenomenological self, memory consolidation, sleep-dependent processing
+**Adjacent fields**: Cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind
+**Papers added**: 12 papers
+
+### Round 3: Classics
+**Identified works**: Thompson (2015), Dennett (1991), Metzinger (2003), Born & Wilhelm (2012)
+**Papers added**: 8 classic papers
+
+**Total**: 45 papers in literature base
+
+### Gap Identification
+**Method**: Concept mapping + Problem-solution analysis
+
+**Gaps found**:
+1. **Compression mechanism**: How exactly is narrative compressed during sleep?
+   - Evidence: Thompson mentions "taken apart and put together" but no mechanism
+   - 5 papers acknowledge this limitation
+
+2. **Functional explanation**: Why is self-continuity maintained (evolutionary purpose)?
+   - Evidence: Most papers describe but don't explain function
+   - 4 papers raise this as future work
+
+3. **Cross-sleep identity**: Philosophical implications of discontinuity
+   - Evidence: Neuroscience describes process, philosophy discusses identity, but no integration
+   - Gap at intersection of two literatures
+
+### Originality Assessment
+**Similarity analysis**: Highest overlap 65% (medium)
+**Innovation types**: Integrative (philosophy + neuroscience) + Theoretical (compression framework)
+**Impact score**: 8/10 (bridges two literatures, addresses acknowledged gaps)
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Effective literature search requires:
+1. **Systematic keyword generation** (10-15 combinations)
+2. **Multi-round search** (direct → expanded → classics)
+3. **Rigorous gap identification** (3 methods, evidence-based)
+4. **Thorough originality assessment** (similarity + innovation + impact)
+5. **Quality verification** (pass all checklist items)
+
+This ensures comprehensive coverage and confident identification of genuine research opportunities.