research-paper-writing

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Research Paper Writing

研究论文写作

Overview

概述

Use this skill to rewrite a research paper into a reviewer-friendly, high-clarity draft. Prioritize first-impression quality (figures/tables/layout), logical flow, and evidence-backed claims.

使用本技能将研究论文改写为对审稿人友好、清晰度高的草稿。优先保障第一印象质量（图表/排版）、逻辑流畅性以及有证据支撑的论点。

Core Workflow

核心工作流

Clarify the paper story before sentence-level edits.
Use section-specific guidance in
```
references/
```
.
Rewrite paragraph-by-paragraph with one message per paragraph.
Run reverse outlining after writing each section.
Check every major claim in Abstract/Introduction against experimental evidence.
Run final-paper adversarial review with
```
references/paper-review.md
```
.

在句子层面编辑之前先梳理清楚论文的叙事主线。
使用
```
references/
```
目录下的章节专属指导文档。
逐段改写，每段仅传递一个核心信息。
写完每个章节后进行反向大纲梳理。
对照实验证据核查摘要/引言中的每一个核心论点。
借助
```
references/paper-review.md
```
对终稿进行对抗性评审。

Global Principles

通用原则

Keep one paragraph for one message only.
State the paragraph message in the first sentence.
Make nouns self-contained; define new terms before reusing them.
Maintain sentence-to-sentence flow (cause, contrast, consequence, or refinement).
Iterate with adversarial self-review: read as a skeptical reviewer.
Treat visual quality as core content, not decoration.
Use a clean teaser and pipeline figure.
Use readable, minimal-ink tables.
Keep formatting consistent and tidy.

每段仅传递一个核心信息。
在段落首句点明本段核心信息。
名词表述要自洽；新术语在重复使用前要先明确定义。
保持句与句之间的逻辑衔接（因果、对比、递进、补充说明）。
通过对抗性自我评审迭代优化：以持怀疑态度的审稿人视角阅读论文。
把视觉质量当作核心内容而非装饰。
使用清晰明了的 teaser 图和流程图。
使用易读、低冗余的表格。
保持格式统一整洁。

Paragraph Clarity Check (Important)

段落清晰度检查（重要）

Use this quick test whenever the user asks whether a paragraph "flows" or is clear.

Read as an external reader:
- Does this paragraph have one explicit message?
- Does the first sentence state what this paragraph will do?
- Are all key nouns/terms readable without hidden context?
- Does each sentence connect to the previous one with a clear relation (cause, contrast, consequence, refinement, example)?
Run reverse outlining for the current section:
- Write down thesis/main claim.
- Write down each paragraph topic sentence.
- Write down the evidence/explanation points under each paragraph.
- Check mapping: topic sentence -> thesis, and evidence -> topic sentence.
- Revise or remove any paragraph that cannot be mapped cleanly.
If flow is still weak, add temporary section headers and explicit transition phrases during revision, then remove unnecessary headers before finalizing.

Source reference for this check:

references/does-my-writing-flow-source.md

当用户询问某段是否「流畅」或清晰时，使用这套快速测试方法。

以外部读者的身份阅读：
- 本段是否有一个明确的核心信息？
- 首句是否点明了本段将要阐述的内容？
- 所有核心名词/术语的含义是否清晰，无需依赖隐藏上下文？
- 每句话与前一句话是否有明确的逻辑关联（因果、对比、递进、补充、举例）？
对当前章节进行反向大纲梳理：
- 写下章节核心论点/主旨。
- 写下每一段的主题句。
- 写下每一段下的论据/解释要点。
- 检查对应关系：主题句是否支撑主旨，论据是否支撑主题句。
- 修改或删除任何无法明确对应上的段落。
如果流畅度仍然不佳，修改期间可以临时添加章节标题和明确的过渡短语，定稿前再删除不必要的标题。

本检查的参考来源：

references/does-my-writing-flow-source.md

Section Guides

章节指南

Load only the needed section file:

Introduction:
```
references/introduction.md
```
Abstract:
```
references/abstract.md
```
Related Work:
```
references/related-work.md
```
Method:
```
references/method.md
```
Experiments:
```
references/experiments.md
```
Conclusion:
```
references/conclusion.md
```
Paper review (Paper Rview):
```
references/paper-review.md
```

Paragraph clarity source:

references/does-my-writing-flow-source.md

Example bank index:
```
references/examples/index.md
```

仅加载需要的章节文件：

引言：
```
references/introduction.md
```
摘要：
```
references/abstract.md
```
相关工作：
```
references/related-work.md
```
研究方法：
```
references/method.md
```
实验：
```
references/experiments.md
```
结论：
```
references/conclusion.md
```
论文评审：
```
references/paper-review.md
```

段落清晰度参考来源：

references/does-my-writing-flow-source.md

示例库索引：
```
references/examples/index.md
```

Paper Review Core Points

论文评审核心要点

Use

references/paper-review.md

for the full checklist and workflow.

Add an end-of-draft self-review question list in five dimensions:
- contribution,
- writing clarity,
- experimental strength,
- evaluation completeness,
- method design soundness.
Treat claim-evidence alignment as a hard constraint, especially for Abstract and Introduction.
Perform adversarial writing: review as a skeptical reviewer and resolve every high-risk question.
Revise until major rejection risks are explicitly addressed.

使用

references/paper-review.md

查看完整检查清单和工作流。

在草稿末尾添加五个维度的自我评审问题清单：
- 贡献度，
- 写作清晰度，
- 实验说服力，
- 评估完整性，
- 方法设计合理性。
将论点-论据匹配度作为硬性约束，摘要和引言部分尤其需要注意。
进行对抗性写作：以持怀疑态度的审稿人视角评审，解决所有高风险问题。
持续修改直到所有主要拒稿风险都得到明确回应。

Execution Rules

执行规则

Build a mini-outline before drafting prose.
For each subsection, explicitly include motivation, design, and technical advantage when applicable.
Avoid writing style that looks like incremental patching of a naive baseline.
Keep terminology stable across the full paper.
If a claim cannot be supported by results, weaken or remove the claim.
Before finalizing, append and answer a five-dimension self-review question list, then revise the paper based on unresolved items.
Do not load all section references (Introduction/Abstract/Related Work/Method/Experiments/Conclusion) at once; load only the specific section guide needed for the current edit target.

起草正文前先搭建一个迷你大纲。
对于每个子章节，适用的情况下要明确包含动机、设计和技术优势。
避免看起来像是对基础基线进行增量修补的写作风格。
整篇论文的术语使用要保持一致。
如果某个论点没有结果支撑，弱化或删除该论点。
定稿前，附加并回答五个维度的自我评审问题清单，再根据未解决的项修改论文。
不要一次性加载所有章节参考文档（引言/摘要/相关工作/方法/实验/结论）；仅加载当前编辑目标所需的特定章节指导。

Output Contract

输出约定

When asked to rewrite or draft sections, return:

A compact section outline (3-7 bullets).
Revised paragraphs with explicit paragraph roles (opening/challenge/method/advantage/evidence/limitation).
A short self-review checklist covering clarity, flow, terminology consistency, unsupported claims, and missing evidence.
A claim-evidence map for each major claim in the revised text using
```
Claim: ... | Evidence: ... | Status: supported/needs evidence
```
.

当被要求改写或起草章节时，返回：

精简的章节大纲（3-7个要点）。
修改后的段落，标注明确的段落角色（开篇/挑战/方法/优势/论据/局限性）。
简短的自我评审清单，涵盖清晰度、流畅度、术语一致性、无支撑论点、缺失论据等维度。
修改后文本中每个核心论点的论点-论据映射表，格式为
```
Claim: ... | Evidence: ... | Status: supported/needs evidence
```
。