academic-writing-standards

Original：🇺🇸 English
Translated

Expert knowledge of academic writing standards for peer-reviewed papers, including citation integrity, style compliance, clarity, and scientific writing best practices. Use when reviewing or editing academic manuscripts, papers, or research documentation.

1installs
Sourceseabbs/claude-code-config
Added on

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add seabbs/claude-code-config academic-writing-standards

Tags

Translated version includes tags in frontmatter
academic-writingpeer-review-paperscitation-standardsformatting-guidelinesoriginality-checking

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Academic Writing Standards

This skill provides expertise in academic writing standards for peer-reviewed research papers, ensuring clarity, rigour, and adherence to scientific writing conventions.

Core Writing Principles

Clarity and Directness

Prioritise:
  • Clarity over eloquence
  • Precision over persuasion
  • Simple constructions over complex ones
  • Active voice wherever possible
Avoid:
  • Unnecessary adjectives and adverbs
  • Overstatement and hyperbole
  • Excessive qualification ("very", "clearly", "significantly", "novel")
  • Complex punctuation where simpler alternatives work

Style Transformations

Examples of preferred style:
Wordy: "The results clearly demonstrate that the novel approach significantly outperforms existing methods"
Better: "The approach outperforms existing methods"

Complex: "The model—which incorporates multiple data sources; including case counts, hospitalisations, and genomic data—provides insights"
Better: "The model incorporates case counts, hospitalisations, and genomic data. It provides insights"

Passive: "It was found that the infection rate was increasing"
Active: "We found the infection rate increased"

Hedged: "It appears that the results seem to suggest that there might be a relationship"
Direct: "The results suggest a relationship"

Punctuation Simplification

Avoid semicolons when possible:
Avoid: "The model includes three components; case counts, delays, and reporting rates"
Better: "The model includes three components: case counts, delays, and reporting rates"
Or: "The model includes three components. These are case counts, delays, and reporting rates"
Avoid excessive em-dashes:
Avoid: "The approach—which we developed over three years—shows promise"
Better: "The approach shows promise. We developed it over three years"
Simplify nested clauses:
Avoid: "The method, which incorporates data from multiple sources, including surveillance systems, which track cases daily, and laboratory reports, provides estimates"
Better: "The method incorporates data from surveillance systems and laboratory reports. It provides estimates"

Formatting Standards

Document Structure

  • One sentence per line in markdown format
  • Maximum 80 characters per line
  • UK English spelling (favour, colour, modelling, analyse)
  • No trailing whitespace
  • No spurious blank lines

Mathematical Notation

  • Use proper LaTeX formatting in appropriate contexts
  • Define all notation clearly on first use
  • Keep mathematical exposition accessible

Citation and Reference Standards

Citation Format Checking

Common formats to verify:
  • Pandoc markdown: 
    [@author2024]
    , 
    [@author2024; @other2023]
  • Multiple citations: 
    [@first2024; @second2024]
  • In-text citations: 
    @author2024 showed that...

Reference Integrity

Check for:
  • Placeholder citations: 
    [@placeholder]
    , 
    [@TODO]
    , 
    [@CITE]
  • Malformed citations: Missing brackets, typos in citation keys
  • Dangling references: Citations in text without corresponding bibliography entries
  • Unused references: Bibliography entries never cited
Citation consistency:
  • Verify citation keys follow consistent naming (e.g., 
    authorYear
    , 
    author_year
    )
  • Check citation formatting matches throughout document
  • Ensure proper use of et al. in multi-author citations

Bibliography Verification

When .bib file available:
  • Cross-reference every citation against bibliography
  • Check for missing entries
  • Verify citation keys match exactly
  • Note any formatting inconsistencies in bibliography
When .bib file unavailable:
  • Flag that references cannot be fully verified
  • Suggest author independently verify all citations
  • Check citation formatting consistency in text

Originality and Attribution

Identifying Potential Issues

Flag text that:
  • Uses distinctive phrasing that may be borrowed
  • Contains technical descriptions matching common sources
  • Includes sequences of concepts in specific order suggesting copying
  • Lacks clear paraphrasing when discussing others' work
Not plagiarism checking:
  • Cannot definitively identify plagiarism
  • Flags passages requiring author verification
  • Suggests paraphrasing where appropriate
  • Encourages proper attribution

Proper Paraphrasing Guidance

Poor paraphrasing:
Original: "The model incorporates a hierarchical Bayesian structure with conjugate priors"
Poor: "The approach uses a hierarchical Bayesian framework with conjugate priors"
Good paraphrasing:
Better: "We used Bayesian hierarchical modelling with conjugate prior distributions"

Common Writing Issues

Overused Qualifiers

Remove or replace:
  • "clearly", "obviously", "evidently" → Often unnecessary, let evidence speak
  • "very", "quite", "rather" → Use stronger base word
  • "significantly" → Reserve for statistical significance
  • "novel", "new" → Show novelty through comparison, don't claim it
  • "state-of-the-art" → Demonstrate through benchmarking

Vague Language

Replace with specifics:
Vague: "The model performed well"
Specific: "The model achieved 95% accuracy"

Vague: "We used a large dataset"
Specific: "We used a dataset of 10,000 cases"

Vague: "Results improved substantially"
Specific: "Accuracy improved from 80% to 92%"

Redundancy

Common redundancies to fix:
  • "past history" → "history"
  • "future plans" → "plans"
  • "end result" → "result"
  • "basic fundamentals" → "fundamentals"
  • "completely finished" → "finished"

Field-Specific Conventions

Epidemiology and Public Health

  • Use "infection" not "case" when referring to true infections
  • Distinguish "reported cases" from "infections"
  • Use "reproduction number" not "R value" in formal writing
  • Define abbreviations on first use: "reproduction number (R)"

Statistical Reporting

  • Report confidence/credible intervals: "estimate (95% CI: lower, upper)"
  • Use "uncertainty interval" for Bayesian analyses
  • Report p-values accurately: "p < 0.001" not "p = 0.000"
  • Distinguish statistical significance from practical importance

Computational Methods

  • Use "implementation" not "coding"
  • "Algorithm" for theoretical description, "implementation" for code
  • Report computational resources when relevant
  • Specify software versions and packages

Review Structure

When reviewing academic writing, structure feedback as:
  1. Reference Issues
    • Citation formatting problems
    • Placeholder citations
    • Missing bibliography entries
    • Inconsistencies in citation style
  2. Attribution Concerns
    • Passages requiring verification
    • Suggestions for better paraphrasing
    • Unclear sourcing of ideas
  3. Style Improvements
    • Clarity and conciseness suggestions
    • Active voice conversions
    • Simplified sentence structures
    • Removed unnecessary qualifiers
  4. Formatting Issues
    • Line length violations
    • Formatting inconsistencies
    • Spelling (UK vs US English)

When to Apply This Skill

Use these standards when:
  • Reviewing academic manuscripts
  • Editing research papers
  • Preparing submissions to journals
  • Writing methods sections
  • Drafting discussion sections
  • Revising based on reviewer comments
Maintain scientific rigour whilst improving readability. Always provide specific, actionable feedback with examples.