Back to Details

q-intro

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Q-Intro

Q-Intro

This skill guides drafting and refinement of introduction sections for academic manuscripts. It supports two modes: an interview-based workflow for drafting from scratch, and a diagnostic workflow for refining existing drafts.
本Skill可指导学术手稿引言部分的草拟与优化工作，支持两种模式：从零开始草拟的访谈式工作流，以及优化现有草稿的诊断式工作流。

Core Principles

核心原则

  1. Write in flowing paragraphs without bullet points or em-dashes
  2. Move from broad phenomenon to specific research context
  3. Trace a single narrative arc through the literature rather than cataloging disconnected streams
  4. Ground the literature review in the target journal's home discipline first; let adjacent fields enter as natural extensions
  5. Introduce theoretical frameworks as the resolution to a question or need established in the preceding paragraph, never abruptly
  6. Bridge every paragraph transition explicitly: each opening must resolve or extend the prior paragraph's conclusion
  7. Design research questions with a clear scope progression (e.g., descriptive, relational, conditional)
  8. Choose key variable terms deliberately to capture the full dimensionality of what is being studied
  9. State research questions explicitly and enumerate contributions with parallel structure
  10. Maintain academic register appropriate for target venue
  11. Include brief roadmap of article structure at conclusion
  1. 采用流畅的段落式写作，避免使用项目符号或破折号
  2. 从宽泛的研究现象逐步过渡到具体的研究背景
  3. 以单一叙事脉络梳理文献，而非罗列零散的研究分支
  4. 文献综述首先锚定目标期刊所属的核心学科，再自然延伸至相邻领域
  5. 在前文段落提出问题或需求后，再引入理论框架，切勿突兀呈现
  6. 段落间的过渡需明确衔接：每段的开头必须承接或延伸上一段的结论
  7. 设计研究问题时遵循清晰的范围递进逻辑（如描述性、关联性、条件性）
  8. 审慎选择核心变量术语，完整涵盖研究对象的全部维度
  9. 明确列出研究问题，并采用平行结构阐述研究贡献
  10. 保持符合目标期刊要求的学术语体
  11. 在引言结尾简要概述文章结构

Argumentative Architecture

论证架构

This section codifies the logic that connects paragraphs into a cohesive argument. Structure and templates (below) describe what goes where; argumentative architecture describes why each element appears where it does and how it connects to its neighbors.
本节明确了将段落串联成连贯论证的逻辑。下文的结构与模板说明了各元素的位置，而论证架构则解释了每个元素放置于此的原因，以及它与前后内容的关联。

Paragraph-Level Architecture

段落层面架构

P1 (Phenomenon and Stakes): Establish the broader trend transforming the domain. Signal the specific context where the trend is most consequential. End with the stakes: what is at risk, what is unknown, or what opportunity the trend creates. The final sentence should implicitly raise a question that the next paragraph will address.
P2 (Literature and Gaps): Begin from the target discipline's core research traditions, not from adjacent or tangential fields. Progress outward: as the discipline's own tools and frameworks prove insufficient for the reframed question, introduce adjacent literatures as natural extensions. Reframe the central question that the field now faces. Then let gaps emerge as inevitable consequences of the narrative trajectory, not as disconnected items in a list. Each gap should flow from the preceding narrative.
P3 (Theory, Study, and Research Questions): Open with a bridge sentence that directly resolves P2's gaps (e.g., "Addressing these gaps requires a theoretical lens that..."). Introduce the primary theoretical framework as the answer to P2's reframed question, explaining why it is suited to the task. If using a complementary framework, explain what evaluative or perceptual dimension it captures that the primary framework alone cannot. Then describe the empirical context and justify its selection. State research questions in progressive scope, followed by a brief methods preview.
P4 (Contributions): Enumerate theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions using parallel structure. Each contribution should signal applicability beyond the immediate context.
P5 (Roadmap): Brief orientation to the remaining sections. Transition to the literature review.
P1（研究现象与重要性）：确立正在改变领域的广泛趋势，指出该趋势最具影响力的具体场景。结尾点明研究意义：存在哪些风险、未知点或趋势带来的机遇。最后一句需隐含一个问题，引导下一段内容展开。
P2（文献与研究缺口）：从目标学科的核心研究传统切入，而非相邻或边缘领域。逐步拓展：当学科自身的工具与框架不足以应对重新定义的问题时，再自然引入相邻领域的文献。重新梳理领域当前面临的核心问题，随后让研究缺口顺理成章地从叙事脉络中呈现，而非以零散列表形式罗列。每个缺口都应承接前文的叙事逻辑。
P3（理论、研究设计与研究问题）：以衔接句开篇，直接回应P2提出的研究缺口（例如：“要解决这些缺口，需要一种能够……的理论视角”）。将主要理论框架作为P2重新定义问题的解决方案引入，并解释其适配性。若使用补充框架，需说明它能捕捉到主框架无法覆盖的评估或感知维度。随后描述实证研究场景并论证其合理性。按范围递进逻辑列出研究问题，并简要预览研究方法。
P4（研究贡献）：采用平行结构列举理论、方法与实证层面的贡献。每项贡献都应体现超越研究本身的适用性。
P5（文章路线图）：简要介绍剩余章节的内容，为读者提供阅读指引，并过渡到文献综述部分。

Cross-Paragraph Bridge Patterns

跨段落衔接模式

Bridges are the connective tissue of the argument. Each paragraph's opening sentence must explicitly connect to the prior paragraph's conclusion:
  • P1 to P2: P1 ends with stakes or an implicit question; P2 opens by grounding in the discipline's response to those stakes (e.g., "The field has extensively examined...")
  • P2 to P3: P2 ends with gaps that constrain understanding; P3 opens by stating what is needed to address them (e.g., "Addressing these gaps requires a generalizable lens capable of...")
  • P3 to P4: P3 ends with methods preview; P4 opens with contributions enumeration (e.g., "This research offers three contributions")
  • P4 to P5: P4 ends with the final contribution; P5 opens with the roadmap (e.g., "The article is organized as follows")
衔接是论证的联结纽带。每段的开头句必须明确承接上一段的结论：
  • P1到P2：P1结尾点明研究意义或隐含问题；P2开篇从学科对这些意义的回应切入（例如：“学界已广泛研究……”）
  • P2到P3：P2结尾指出制约认知的研究缺口；P3开篇说明解决这些缺口所需的条件（例如：“要解决这些缺口，需要一种具备……能力的通用视角”）
  • P3到P4：P3结尾预览研究方法；P4开篇列举研究贡献（例如：“本研究具有三项贡献”）
  • P4到P5：P4结尾阐述最后一项贡献；P5开篇给出文章路线图（例如：“本文结构如下”）

Within-Paragraph Logic

段落内部逻辑

Literature paragraph: Each literature stream should enter because the previous stream raised a question it cannot answer. Do not list streams as "complementary" without showing the intellectual connection. The paragraph should read as a single progressive narrative, not a catalog of fields.
Gap identification: Gaps should feel like inevitable consequences of the trajectory, not items appended to a list. Ask: given everything we just traced, what naturally remains unresolved? The answer yields the gaps.
Theory paragraph: The theoretical framework should be introduced as the resolution to a problem, not as background information. The reader should feel that the framework is the logical answer to the question the literature paragraph raised.
Research questions: Design RQs with a clear scope progression. A common pattern:
  • RQ1 (descriptive): What is the landscape? How are key features distributed?
  • RQ2 (relational): How do key variables relate to outcomes?
  • RQ3 (conditional): Under which specific conditions are effects strongest?
Each RQ should reflect the study's key variables. If a concept encompasses multiple dimensions (e.g., channel size, content genre, video format), the umbrella term used in the RQs should capture that full dimensionality.
文献段落：每个研究分支的引入都应是因为前一个分支提出了自身无法解答的问题。切勿将不同分支列为“互补”却不说明其学术关联。段落应呈现为单一的递进叙事，而非研究领域的罗列。
研究缺口识别：缺口应是叙事脉络的自然结果，而非附加的列表项。可以这样思考：基于前文梳理的内容，哪些问题自然未被解决？答案即为研究缺口。
理论段落：理论框架应作为问题的解决方案引入，而非背景信息。读者应能感受到该框架是文献段落提出问题的合理答案。
研究问题：按清晰的范围递进逻辑设计研究问题。常见模式：
  • RQ1（描述性）：研究现状如何？核心特征的分布情况是怎样的？
  • RQ2（关联性）：核心变量与研究结果之间存在怎样的关联？
  • RQ3（条件性）：在哪些特定条件下，效应最为显著？
每个研究问题都应反映研究的核心变量。若某概念涵盖多个维度（例如渠道规模、内容类型、视频格式），研究问题中使用的 umbrella term 需完整涵盖这些维度。

Workflow

工作流

Phase 1: Context Interview (5-8 questions)

第一阶段：背景访谈（5-8个问题）

Before drafting, conduct a structured interview covering:
Target Venue and Disciplinary Home (ask first)
  • What journal or venue are you targeting?
  • What is the home discipline of this journal?
  • What are the core concerns and established research traditions of this discipline?
  • How should the literature review be anchored in this discipline before extending to adjacent fields?
  • What is the typical introduction length and style for this venue?
Phenomenon and Context
  • What broader phenomenon does this research address?
  • What is the specific empirical context or case study?
  • Why is this context particularly suitable for investigating the phenomenon?
Theoretical Positioning
  • What are the key theoretical frameworks being used?
  • What makes each framework appropriate given the gaps in existing scholarship?
  • If using multiple theories, what does the integration enable that single theories cannot?
  • What 2-3 substantive gaps constrain current understanding?
Research Design
  • What research questions guide the investigation?
  • How do these questions map to the gaps identified?
  • Do the questions follow a scope progression (descriptive, relational, conditional)?
  • What methodological approach addresses these questions?
  • What is the analytical scope (sample, timeframe, variables)?
Contributions
  • What theoretical contribution advances scholarly understanding?
  • What methodological contribution enables future research?
  • What empirical or practical contribution informs stakeholders?
草拟前，需开展结构化访谈，涵盖以下内容：
目标期刊与所属学科（优先询问）
  • 你的目标期刊或发表平台是什么？
  • 该期刊所属的核心学科是什么？
  • 该学科的核心关注点与成熟研究传统有哪些？
  • 文献综述应如何锚定该学科，再延伸至相邻领域？
  • 该期刊对引言的典型篇幅与风格有何要求？
研究现象与场景
  • 本研究针对的广泛现象是什么？
  • 具体的实证研究场景或案例是什么？
  • 为什么该场景特别适合研究这一现象？
理论定位
  • 本研究使用的核心理论框架有哪些？
  • 考虑到现有研究的缺口，每个框架的适配性体现在哪里？
  • 若使用多种理论，整合后的框架能实现哪些单一理论无法达成的目标？
  • 当前认知存在哪2-3个关键缺口？
研究设计
  • 指导本研究的核心问题是什么？
  • 这些问题如何对应已识别的研究缺口？
  • 问题是否遵循范围递进逻辑（描述性、关联性、条件性）？
  • 采用何种研究方法来解答这些问题？
  • 分析范围是什么（样本、时间范围、变量）？
研究贡献
  • 理论层面，本研究如何推动学术认知的发展？
  • 方法层面，本研究为未来研究提供了哪些支持？
  • 实证或实践层面，本研究为利益相关者提供了哪些参考？

Phase 2: Draft Structure

第二阶段：草拟结构

An effective introduction contains five structural components, each with a specific argumentative role:
  1. Opening Hook (1 paragraph)
    • Establishes the broader phenomenon
    • Situates within contemporary context
    • Ends with stakes that implicitly raise a question for the next paragraph
  2. Literature and Gaps (1 paragraph)
    • Begins from the target discipline's core concerns
    • Progresses outward as existing frameworks prove insufficient
    • Reframes the central question
    • Lets gaps emerge as natural consequences of the trajectory
  3. Theory, Context, and Research Questions (1 paragraph)
    • Opens with a bridge resolving the gaps
    • Introduces theory as the answer, not background
    • Describes the empirical context and justifies its selection
    • States RQs in progressive scope with brief methods preview
  4. Contributions Statement (1 paragraph)
    • Enumerates theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions
    • Uses parallel structure for clarity
    • Signals broader applicability beyond immediate context
  5. Article Roadmap (1 paragraph)
    • Briefly outlines remaining sections
    • Provides reader orientation
    • Transitions to literature review
一篇优质的引言包含五个结构性组件，每个组件都有特定的论证作用：
  1. 开篇引入（1段）
    • 确立广泛的研究现象
    • 置于当前研究背景中
    • 结尾点明研究意义，隐含引导下一段的问题
  2. 文献与研究缺口（1段）
    • 从目标学科的核心关注点切入
    • 当现有框架不足以应对问题时，逐步拓展范围
    • 重新梳理核心问题
    • 让研究缺口顺理成章地从叙事脉络中呈现
  3. 理论、场景与研究问题（1段）
    • 以衔接句开篇，回应研究缺口
    • 将理论作为解决方案引入，而非背景信息
    • 描述实证研究场景并论证其合理性
    • 按范围递进逻辑列出研究问题，并简要预览研究方法
  4. 研究贡献阐述（1段）
    • 列举理论、方法与实证层面的贡献
    • 采用平行结构以保证清晰性
    • 体现超越研究本身的广泛适用性
  5. 文章路线图（1段）
    • 简要概述剩余章节
    • 为读者提供阅读指引
    • 过渡到文献综述部分

Phase 3: Writing and Tightening

第三阶段：撰写与优化

Tone and Register
  • Use active voice where appropriate
  • Avoid hedging language when making clear claims
  • Write accessibly without sacrificing precision
Sentence Structure
  • Vary sentence length for rhythm
  • Use hyphens for compound modifiers only
  • Never use em-dashes; use commas, semicolons, or parentheses
  • Spell out numbers below ten unless measurements or statistics
  • Cut filler phrases (e.g., "has devoted sustained attention to" can become "has extensively examined")
  • Compress clause chains: reduce multi-clause compound sentences to direct constructions
  • Favor direct subject-verb openings over passive or wordy constructions
  • If two sentences make the same point, merge or cut one
  • Every sentence must earn its place; if removing it does not weaken the argument, remove it
Citations
  • Integrate citations smoothly into prose
  • Group related citations parenthetically
  • Use "Citation (year)" for author-focused references
  • Use "(Citation)" for supporting references
Gap Articulation Frame gaps constructively rather than critically:
  • "Three gaps emerge from this trajectory..."
  • "Limited attention has been given to..."
  • "The role of X remains underdeveloped..."
Anti-pattern: Listing disconnected literature streams as "complementary" without showing how they connect. Instead, trace a progression where each stream enters because the previous one raised a question it cannot answer.
Contribution Framing Use parallel structure:
  • "Theoretically, this study advances..."
  • "Methodologically, the study introduces..."
  • "Empirically, the findings yield..."
语语体
  • 适当使用主动语态
  • 提出明确观点时避免模糊的措辞
  • 在保证精准性的前提下，确保文字通俗易懂
句子结构
  • 变换句子长度以形成节奏
  • 仅在复合修饰语中使用连字符
  • 切勿使用破折号；使用逗号、分号或括号替代
  • 十以下的数字需拼写完整，除非是测量值或统计数据
  • 删除冗余短语（例如“has devoted sustained attention to”可简化为“has extensively examined”）
  • 简化从句链：将多从句复合句简化为直接表达
  • 优先使用直接的主谓开头，而非被动或冗长的结构
  • 若两句表达相同观点，合并或删除其中一句
  • 每句话都必须有存在的价值；若删除后不影响论证，则应删除
引用规范
  • 将引用自然融入文本
  • 把相关引用放在同一个括号内
  • 针对作者主导的引用，使用“Citation (year)”格式
  • 针对支持性引用，使用“(Citation)”格式
研究缺口表述 以建设性而非批判性的方式表述研究缺口：
  • “从这一叙事脉络中可发现三个缺口……”
  • “现有研究对……的关注有限”
  • “X的作用仍有待深入研究……”
反模式：将零散的文献分支列为“互补”却不说明其关联。正确做法是梳理递进脉络，每个分支的引入都是因为前一个分支提出了自身无法解答的问题。
研究贡献表述 采用平行结构：
  • “理论层面，本研究推动了……”
  • “方法层面，本研究引入了……”
  • “实证层面，研究结果得出了……”

Phase 4: Refinement Mode

第四阶段：优化模式

When the user has an existing draft rather than starting from scratch, use this diagnostic workflow instead of or after the interview.
Step 1: Read and Diagnose
Read the full introduction and evaluate against the diagnostic checklist:
  • Does the literature paragraph trace a single narrative arc, or does it catalog disconnected streams?
  • Does the theory appear motivated by a question or need from the preceding paragraph, or does it come from nowhere?
  • Do paragraph transitions bridge explicitly, or do they jump?
  • Do RQs follow a scope progression (descriptive, relational, conditional), or are they a flat list?
  • Are key variable terms precise enough to capture their full dimensionality?
  • Is there redundancy (two sentences making the same point)?
  • Does the literature review start from the target discipline's core concerns?
Step 2: Restructure (Macro)
Address paragraph-level architecture first:
  • Reorder or merge paragraphs so the argument follows the P1-P2-P3-P4-P5 progression
  • Ensure each paragraph has a clear argumentative role
  • Relocate material that belongs in other sections (detailed theory to literature review, methods detail to methods section)
Step 3: Revise (Meso)
Address within-paragraph logic:
  • Restructure the literature paragraph into a single narrative arc
  • Ensure gaps emerge from the trajectory rather than appearing as a disconnected list
  • Motivate the theoretical framework as a resolution to the preceding gaps
  • Revise RQs for scope progression and variable precision
Step 4: Tighten (Micro)
Address sentence-level prose:
  • Cut filler phrases and compress clause chains
  • Eliminate redundant sentences
  • Verify cross-paragraph bridges
  • Ensure every sentence earns its place
当用户已有现成草稿而非从零开始时，可使用本诊断式工作流，替代或补充访谈流程。
步骤1：阅读与诊断
通读整篇引言，对照诊断清单进行评估：
  • 文献段落是否呈现单一叙事脉络，还是罗列零散的研究分支？
  • 理论框架是否由前文的问题或需求引出，还是突兀出现？
  • 段落间的过渡是否有明确的衔接，还是跳跃式的？
  • 研究问题是否遵循范围递进逻辑（描述性、关联性、条件性），还是平淡的列表？
  • 核心变量术语是否完整涵盖研究对象的全部维度？
  • 是否存在冗余内容（两句表达相同观点）？
  • 文献综述是否从目标学科的核心关注点切入？
步骤2：宏观重构
首先调整段落层面的架构：
  • 重新排序或合并段落，使论证遵循P1-P2-P3-P4-P5的递进逻辑
  • 确保每个段落都有明确的论证作用
  • 将不属于引言的内容移至其他章节（例如详细的理论介绍移至文献综述，详细的方法介绍移至方法章节）
步骤3：中观修订
调整段落内部的逻辑：
  • 将文献段落重构为单一叙事脉络
  • 确保研究缺口从叙事脉络中自然呈现，而非零散列表
  • 将理论框架作为解决前文缺口的方案引入
  • 修订研究问题，使其符合范围递进逻辑与变量精准性要求
步骤4：微观优化
调整句子层面的表达：
  • 删除冗余短语，简化从句链
  • 消除冗余句子
  • 检查跨段落的衔接是否明确
  • 确保每句话都有存在的价值

Template Patterns

模板示例

Opening Hook Pattern

开篇引入模板

The [phenomenon] has fundamentally transformed how [domain activity] is
[produced/distributed/consumed]. Traditional [prior approach], once the
dominant [channel/method], is increasingly [supplemented/supplanted] by
[new approach] where [key mechanism] drives [outcome] (Citation). This
shift toward [trend] carries particular significance for [specific context],
which must [key challenge] through [means] rather than [traditional approach].
The [phenomenon] has fundamentally transformed how [domain activity] is
[produced/distributed/consumed]. Traditional [prior approach], once the
dominant [channel/method], is increasingly [supplemented/supplanted] by
[new approach] where [key mechanism] drives [outcome] (Citation). This
shift toward [trend] carries particular significance for [specific context],
which must [key challenge] through [means] rather than [traditional approach].

Literature and Gaps Pattern

文献与研究缺口模板

Architecture note: Begin from the target discipline's core research tradition. Each subsequent stream should enter because the previous one raised a question it cannot answer. End with gaps that feel like inevitable consequences.
[Target discipline] scholarship has extensively examined [core question].
[Core research stream] developed [frameworks/scales] for [traditional context]
(Citations), later extended to [newer context] (Citations). As [domain shift]
has migrated to [new environment], scholars recognize that [new dynamics]
restructure [activity] itself (Citations), and [content/platform features]
actively shape [outcomes] (Citations). This reframes a central question:
beyond [what prior work asked], how do [observable properties] [activate/
shape] [deeper mechanisms]? Yet the field's predominant methodology,
[dominant approach] (Citations), is ill-equipped to answer it. [N] gaps
emerge. First, [gap 1]. Second, [gap 2]. Third, [gap 3].
架构说明：从目标学科的核心研究传统切入。每个后续研究分支的引入都是因为前一个分支提出了自身无法解答的问题。结尾的研究缺口应顺理成章。
[Target discipline] scholarship has extensively examined [core question].
[Core research stream] developed [frameworks/scales] for [traditional context]
(Citations), later extended to [newer context] (Citations). As [domain shift]
has migrated to [new environment], scholars recognize that [new dynamics]
restructure [activity] itself (Citations), and [content/platform features]
actively shape [outcomes] (Citations). This reframes a central question:
beyond [what prior work asked], how do [observable properties] [activate/
shape] [deeper mechanisms]? Yet the field's predominant methodology,
[dominant approach] (Citations), is ill-equipped to answer it. [N] gaps
emerge. First, [gap 1]. Second, [gap 2]. Third, [gap 3].

Theory and Research Questions Pattern

理论与研究问题模板

Architecture note: Open with a bridge that resolves the gaps. Introduce theory as the answer to the reframed question, not as background.
Addressing these gaps requires a generalizable [theoretical lens/framework]
capable of [linking X to Y]. [Theory Name] offers this lens, identifying
[core constructs] whose [mechanism] fosters [outcomes] (Citations). Applied
to [domain], [Theory] shifts the question from [old question] to [new
question], providing a principled basis for [analytical contribution]. To
capture [complementary dimension], the study pairs [Theory 1] with [Theory 2],
which [complementary mechanism] (Citations). This combined framework is
applied to [empirical context], a [brief characterization]. [Context] [key
features], providing a particularly instructive setting for [investigation
focus]. Analyzing [N units] [data type], [N] research questions guide the
investigation: (RQ1) [descriptive question]? (RQ2) [relational question]?
(RQ3) [conditional question]? [Brief methods sentence describing analytical
pipeline and measurement approach].
架构说明：以衔接句开篇，回应研究缺口。将理论作为重新定义问题的解决方案引入，而非背景信息。
Addressing these gaps requires a generalizable [theoretical lens/framework]
capable of [linking X to Y]. [Theory Name] offers this lens, identifying
[core constructs] whose [mechanism] fosters [outcomes] (Citations). Applied
to [domain], [Theory] shifts the question from [old question] to [new
question], providing a principled basis for [analytical contribution]. To
capture [complementary dimension], the study pairs [Theory 1] with [Theory 2],
which [complementary mechanism] (Citations). This combined framework is
applied to [empirical context], a [brief characterization]. [Context] [key
features], providing a particularly instructive setting for [investigation
focus]. Analyzing [N units] [data type], [N] research questions guide the
investigation: (RQ1) [descriptive question]? (RQ2) [relational question]?
(RQ3) [conditional question]? [Brief methods sentence describing analytical
pipeline and measurement approach].

Contributions Pattern

研究贡献模板

This research offers [N] contributions. Theoretically, the study advances
[framework/understanding], demonstrating how [integration/extension] can
explain [phenomenon] beyond the immediate empirical context. Methodologically,
the study introduces [approach/pipeline] that can be adapted to [broader
applications], addressing calls for [methodological need]. Empirically, the
findings yield actionable insights for [stakeholders], clarifying [practical
implications].
This research offers [N] contributions. Theoretically, the study advances
[framework/understanding], demonstrating how [integration/extension] can
explain [phenomenon] beyond the immediate empirical context. Methodologically,
the study introduces [approach/pipeline] that can be adapted to [broader
applications], addressing calls for [methodological need]. Empirically, the
findings yield actionable insights for [stakeholders], clarifying [practical
implications].

Scope Boundaries

范围边界

Include in introduction:
  • Broad phenomenon contextualization
  • Prior literature streams and gaps (narrative arc, not catalog)
  • Theoretical framework introduction (motivated, not abrupt)
  • Research questions (progressive scope) and brief method preview
  • Contribution statements
  • Article roadmap
Reserve for other sections:
  • Detailed literature review and hypothesis development
  • Comprehensive methodology description
  • Results and findings
  • Extended discussion and implications
引言需包含的内容：
  • 广泛的研究现象背景
  • 文献脉络与研究缺口（叙事式呈现，而非列表）
  • 理论框架引入（有明确动机，而非突兀）
  • 研究问题（范围递进）与方法预览
  • 研究贡献阐述
  • 文章路线图
需保留至其他章节的内容：
  • 详细的文献综述与假设推导
  • 完整的研究方法描述
  • 研究结果与发现
  • 拓展性讨论与启示

Quality Checklist

质量检查清单

  • Opening establishes phenomenon before introducing specific context
  • Literature paragraph traces a single narrative arc (not a disconnected catalog)
  • Literature review begins from the target discipline's core concerns
  • Theory introduction is motivated by a question or need from the preceding paragraph
  • Cross-paragraph bridges are explicit (each opening resolves the prior paragraph's conclusion)
  • Gaps are clearly articulated and emerge from the narrative trajectory (typically 2-4)
  • Research questions directly address identified gaps
  • RQs follow a scope progression (e.g., descriptive, relational, conditional)
  • Key variable terms capture the full dimensionality of what is being studied
  • Case selection is justified
  • Contributions are enumerated with parallel structure
  • Roadmap previews remaining sections
  • No bullet points or em-dashes in prose
  • No redundant sentences (each sentence makes a unique point)
  • Citations integrated smoothly
  • Appropriate length for venue (typically 3-5 paragraphs)
  • 开篇先介绍研究现象，再引入具体场景
  • 文献段落呈现单一叙事脉络（而非零散列表）
  • 文献综述从目标学科的核心关注点切入
  • 理论框架由前文的问题或需求引出（而非突兀出现）
  • 跨段落衔接明确（每段开头承接上一段结论）
  • 研究缺口清晰，且从叙事脉络中自然呈现（通常2-4个）
  • 研究问题直接对应已识别的缺口
  • 研究问题遵循范围递进逻辑（例如描述性、关联性、条件性）
  • 核心变量术语完整涵盖研究对象的全部维度
  • 研究场景的选择有合理依据
  • 采用平行结构列举研究贡献
  • 路线图预览了剩余章节
  • 正文中无项目符号或破折号
  • 无冗余句子（每句表达独特观点）
  • 引用自然融入文本
  • 篇幅符合目标期刊要求（通常3-5段）

Reference Files

参考文件

  • references/introduction_template.md: Complete section template with architectural annotations
  • references/interview_questions.md: Detailed interview protocol (venue-first ordering)
  • references/introduction_template.md: 带架构注释的完整章节模板
  • references/interview_questions.md: 详细的访谈协议（按期刊优先顺序排列）