psyclaw 0.28.1 → 0.28.3

package/vendor/academic-paper-skills/academic-paper-strategist/references/quality_standards.md

@@ -0,0 +1,336 @@
+# Quality Standards for Academic Paper Strategy
+
+This document defines the quality evaluation criteria used throughout the strategic planning phase.
+
+## Phase 1: Platform Analysis Quality Standards
+
+### 1.1 Sample Paper Selection Quality
+
+**Time Distribution**:
+- ✓ Recent (last 6 months): 3 papers - captures current trends
+- ✓ Current (1-2 years): 3 papers - represents accepted standards
+- ✓ Classic (highly cited): 2 papers - establishes benchmarks
+- **Minimum**: 8 papers total
+
+**Relevance Scoring** (0-10 scale):
+- 9-10: Directly addresses user's topic with same methodology
+- 7-8: Related topic or similar approach
+- 5-6: Adjacent field or partial overlap
+- <5: Insufficient relevance, exclude
+- **Target**: Average relevance ≥ 8.0
+
+**Diversity Checks**:
+- ✓ At least 5 different authors
+- ✓ At least 3 different research perspectives/schools
+- ✓ Varied paper lengths (short/medium/long form)
+- ✓ Different subfields if applicable
+
+**Quality Indicators**:
+- ✓ Has DOI or permanent identifier
+- ✓ Complete abstract available
+- ✓ Proper citation format
+- ✓ Published on target platform
+
+**Sample Evaluation Report Template**:
+```markdown
+| # | Title | Authors | Date | Relevance | Selection Reason |
+|---|-------|---------|------|-----------|------------------|
+| 1 | ... | ... | YYYY-MM | 9/10 | Direct methodological match |
+| 2 | ... | ... | YYYY-MM | 8/10 | Similar theoretical framework |
+...
+```
+
+### 1.2 Platform Matching Quality
+
+**Platform Relevance Score** (0-10):
+- Subject area alignment
+- Methodology fit (philosophical/empirical/computational)
+- Format compatibility
+- Historical acceptance rate
+
+**Minimum**: 7/10 for recommended platform
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Literature Review Quality Standards
+
+### 2.1 Literature Search Comprehensiveness
+
+**Coverage Metrics**:
+- **Minimum**: 20 core papers
+- **Recommended**: 30-50 papers
+- **Time span**: Last 5 years + foundational classics
+- **Source diversity**: At least 3 major journals/venues
+
+**Keyword Coverage**:
+- ✓ All core concepts covered (3-5 concepts)
+- ✓ Related terms and synonyms searched
+- ✓ Adjacent fields explored
+- **Evaluation**: Each concept should yield 5-10 relevant papers
+
+**Search Quality Checklist**:
+```markdown
+Round 1: Direct Search
+- ✓ 10-15 keyword combinations used
+- ✓ 30-50 papers collected
+- ✓ Top 20 papers retained after relevance filter
+
+Round 2: Expanded Search
+- ✓ New keywords extracted from Round 1 papers
+- ✓ Adjacent fields searched
+- ✓ 10-20 additional papers collected
+
+Round 3: Classic Literature
+- ✓ High-citation papers identified (>100 citations)
+- ✓ Foundational works included
+- ✓ 5-10 seminal papers added
+```
+
+### 2.2 Research Gap Identification Quality
+
+**Gap Definition Quality** (each gap must have):
+1. **Specificity**: Clearly defined boundaries
+2. **Evidence**: 3-5 citations showing gap exists
+3. **Feasibility**: Reasonable for user to address
+4. **Significance**: Addresses important question
+
+**Gap Types** (identify 3-5 total):
+- **Complete gaps**: Entirely unresearched area
+- **Partial gaps**: Understudied or preliminary work only
+- **Controversy gaps**: Unresolved debates
+
+**Quality Check**:
+```markdown
+For each gap, verify:
+- ✓ No existing paper directly addresses this (evidence-based)
+- ✓ Related work acknowledges this as limitation
+- ✓ Gap aligns with user's research direction
+- ✓ Filling gap would constitute original contribution
+```
+
+### 2.3 Originality Assessment Quality
+
+**Similarity Analysis Requirements**:
+- **Minimum**: Compare with 15 related papers
+- **Recommended**: Compare with 20-30 papers
+- **Method**: Identify conceptual/methodological overlaps
+
+**Similarity Categories**:
+- High (>80%): Requires repositioning or abandonment
+- Medium (50-80%): Emphasize differences, may proceed
+- Low (<50%): Good originality, proceed
+
+**Innovation Identification**:
+Must identify at least 2 of:
+- Methodological innovation (new approach)
+- Theoretical innovation (new framework)
+- Application innovation (new problem domain)
+- Integrative innovation (novel synthesis)
+
+**Impact Prediction Criteria** (1-10 scale):
+- Gap importance (5 points): Core vs peripheral problem
+- Generalizability (3 points): Applicable beyond narrow case
+- Explanatory power (2 points): Resolves existing puzzles
+
+**Quality**: Must provide 300-word justification for impact score
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: Outline Optimization Quality Standards
+
+### 3.1 Structure Quality
+
+**Chapter Proportion Standards** (for philosophy papers):
+- Introduction: 15-20% of total
+- Main body: 60-70% of total
+- Conclusion: 10-15% of total
+
+**Logical Flow Checklist**:
+- ✓ Each chapter builds on previous
+- ✓ Clear transitions between sections
+- ✓ No orphaned arguments
+- ✓ Conclusion addresses introduction promises
+
+**Platform Conformity**:
+- Structural similarity to sample papers: ≥70%
+- Section naming consistent with platform norms
+- Word count aligned with platform standards
+
+### 3.2 Reviewer Evaluation Standards
+
+**7-Dimension Assessment** (5 points each, 35 total):
+
+1. **Argument Clarity** (1-5)
+   - 5: Crystal clear thesis + supporting arguments
+   - 4: Clear thesis, minor ambiguities
+   - 3: Thesis identifiable but needs sharpening
+   - 2: Thesis unclear or scattered
+   - 1: No clear thesis
+
+2. **Argument Completeness** (1-5)
+   - 5: All steps justified, no logical gaps
+   - 4: Minor gaps that can be filled
+   - 3: Notable gaps requiring attention
+   - 2: Major logical jumps
+   - 1: Argument structure incomplete
+
+3. **Literature Support** (1-5)
+   - 5: 50+ citations, all key works covered
+   - 4: 40-50 citations, most key works
+   - 3: 30-40 citations, some gaps
+   - 2: 20-30 citations, major gaps
+   - 1: <20 citations, insufficient
+
+4. **Methodological Clarity** (1-5)
+   - 5: Method explicit, well-justified
+   - 4: Method clear, minor justification issues
+   - 3: Method stated but not defended
+   - 2: Method unclear
+   - 1: No methodological clarity
+
+5. **Originality Expression** (1-5)
+   - 5: Contribution crystal clear + well-contrasted
+   - 4: Contribution clear, minor positioning issues
+   - 3: Contribution stated but not differentiated
+   - 2: Contribution unclear
+   - 1: No clear contribution
+
+6. **Organization** (1-5)
+   - 5: Perfect flow, optimal proportions
+   - 4: Good flow, minor proportion issues
+   - 3: Acceptable flow, some reorganization needed
+   - 2: Disjointed, needs restructuring
+   - 1: Chaotic structure
+
+7. **Platform Fit** (1-5)
+   - 5: Perfect match to platform style
+   - 4: Good match, minor adjustments needed
+   - 3: Acceptable, needs adaptation
+   - 2: Poor fit, major revision required
+   - 1: Wrong platform
+
+**Passing Threshold**: ≥28/35 (80%)
+
+**Quality Gate**: Must identify at least 3 issues with concrete improvement suggestions
+
+---
+
+## Quality Gates (Checkpoints)
+
+### Gate 1: Platform Analysis Complete
+**Requirements**:
+- ✓ Sample papers ≥8
+- ✓ Time distribution balanced (recent/current/classic)
+- ✓ Average relevance ≥8/10
+- ✓ Diversity checks passed
+- ✓ Writing guidelines extracted
+
+**Action if Failed**: Re-search with adjusted criteria
+
+---
+
+### Gate 2: Literature Review Complete
+**Requirements**:
+- ✓ Core papers ≥20
+- ✓ Keywords coverage complete (all core concepts)
+- ✓ Research gaps ≥3, each with evidence
+- ✓ Originality score ≥7/10
+- ✓ Impact justification provided
+
+**Action if Failed**: Continue search or pivot research direction
+
+---
+
+### Gate 3: Outline Optimized
+**Requirements**:
+- ✓ Reviewer score ≥28/35 (80%)
+- ✓ All high-severity issues resolved
+- ✓ Structure proportions balanced
+- ✓ Platform conformity ≥70%
+
+**Action if Failed**: Redesign outline addressing identified issues
+
+---
+
+## Evaluation Report Templates
+
+### Sample Paper Evaluation Report
+```markdown
+# Sample Paper Analysis Report
+
+## Executive Summary
+- Papers analyzed: [N]
+- Average relevance: [X/10]
+- Time distribution: [breakdown]
+- Quality: [Pass/Fail]
+
+## Detailed Breakdown
+[Table with all papers]
+
+## Writing Style Patterns
+[Extracted guidelines]
+
+## Recommendation
+[Proceed/Re-search/Adjust criteria]
+```
+
+### Literature Gap Analysis Report
+```markdown
+# Research Gap Identification Report
+
+## Literature Coverage
+- Papers reviewed: [N]
+- Timespan: [range]
+- Core concepts covered: [list]
+
+## Identified Gaps
+### Gap 1: [Title]
+- Type: [Complete/Partial/Controversy]
+- Evidence: [3-5 citations]
+- Significance: [High/Medium/Low]
+- Feasibility: [Assessment]
+
+[Repeat for each gap]
+
+## Originality Assessment
+- Similarity analysis: [High/Medium/Low]
+- Innovation types: [list]
+- Impact prediction: [X/10]
+- Justification: [300 words]
+
+## Recommendation
+[Proceed/Pivot/Reposition]
+```
+
+### Reviewer Evaluation Report
+```markdown
+# Outline Reviewer Assessment
+
+## 7-Dimension Scores
+1. Argument Clarity: [X/5]
+2. Argument Completeness: [X/5]
+3. Literature Support: [X/5]
+4. Methodological Clarity: [X/5]
+5. Originality Expression: [X/5]
+6. Organization: [X/5]
+7. Platform Fit: [X/5]
+
+**Total: [X/35]** (Threshold: 28/35)
+
+## Identified Issues
+[Prioritized list: High/Medium/Low severity]
+
+## Improvement Recommendations
+[Concrete suggestions for each issue]
+
+## Predicted Improvement
+[Expected score after implementing recommendations]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+- These standards are calibrated for **philosophy and interdisciplinary papers** on **preprint platforms**
+- Standards may need adjustment for pure empirical sciences or formal logic papers
+- When in doubt, err on the side of higher quality standards—better to over-prepare than under-prepare