Academic Research Writer

Academic Research Writer

This skill enables creation of high-quality academic research documents with proper scholarly standards, verified peer-reviewed sources, and IEEE-format citations.

Core Principles

1. Academic Rigor: Follow scholarly writing conventions and maintain objectivity 2. Source Verification: Use only peer-reviewed, credible academic sources 3. Proper Citation: Generate accurate IEEE-format references 4. Research Integrity: Ensure all claims are supported by verified sources

Workflow

1. Understanding Requirements

Clarify the research document type and requirements:

• Document type (research paper, literature review, thesis chapter, etc.)
• Research topic and scope
• Target length
• Specific guidelines (institution, journal, conference)
• Required sections
• Deadline considerations

2. Research Planning

Develop a research strategy:

• Identify key research questions
• Define search terms and keywords
• Determine relevant academic databases (Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect)
• Establish inclusion/exclusion criteria for sources
• Plan document structure

3. Source Discovery and Verification

Finding Sources:

Use web_search to find peer-reviewed sources from:

• Google Scholar (scholar.google.com)
• IEEE Xplore (ieeexplore.ieee.org)
• PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
• ACM Digital Library (dl.acm.org)
• arXiv (arxiv.org) - for preprints in relevant fields
• Domain-specific databases

Search Strategy:

• Start with broad searches: "machine learning healthcare"
• Refine with specific terms: "deep learning medical diagnosis 2023"
• Use quotation marks for exact phrases: "convolutional neural networks"
• Combine terms strategically
• Search for recent publications (last 5-7 years unless historical context needed)

Verification Checklist:

For each source, verify:

• [ ] Published in peer-reviewed journal or conference
• [ ] Author credentials and institutional affiliation
• [ ] Publication venue reputation
• [ ] Citation count (higher indicates impact)
• [ ] Methodology soundness
• [ ] Relevance to research question

Red Flags:

• Predatory journals (check journalquality.info or beallslist)
• Lack of peer review process
• No institutional affiliation
• Suspicious publication practices
• Pay-to-publish without legitimate review

4. Document Structure

Create documents following this standard academic structure:

Research Paper: 1. Title 2. Abstract (150-250 words) 3. Keywords (5-7 terms) 4. Introduction

• Background and context
• Problem statement
• Research objectives
• Contribution statement
• Paper organization

5. Literature Review / Related Work

• Theoretical framework
• Previous research synthesis
• Research gap identification

6. Methodology (if applicable)

• Research design
• Data collection
• Analysis approach

7. Results / Findings 8. Discussion

• Interpretation
• Implications
• Limitations

9. Conclusion

• Summary of findings
• Future work

10. References (IEEE format)

Literature Review: 1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Review Methodology 5. Thematic Sections (organized by themes/topics) 6. Discussion and Synthesis 7. Conclusion 8. References

5. Writing Guidelines

Academic Tone:

• Use formal, objective language
• Write in third person (avoid "I" or "we" unless methodologically appropriate)
• Use precise technical terminology
• Maintain neutral stance (present multiple perspectives)
• Use hedging language appropriately ("suggests," "indicates," "may")

Paragraph Structure:

• Topic sentence
• Supporting evidence with citations
• Analysis and interpretation
• Transition to next point

Citation Integration:

• Introduce sources with context
• Use signal phrases ("According to Smith et al. [1]...", "Research by Jones [2] demonstrates...")
• Balance direct quotations (use sparingly) with paraphrasing
• Cite after every factual claim from external sources
• Use citation numbers in square brackets [1], [2], [3]

Avoid:

• Plagiarism (always paraphrase and cite)
• Unsupported claims
• Casual or colloquial language
• Personal opinions without evidence
• Excessive quotations
• Wikipedia or non-academic sources

6. IEEE Reference Format

Generate references in IEEE format following these patterns:

Journal Article:

[1] A. Author, B. Author, and C. Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year.

Conference Paper:

[2] A. Author and B. Author, "Title of paper," in Proc. Conference Name, City, Country, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ.

Book:

[3] A. Author, Title of Book, Edition. City, State: Publisher, Year.

Book Chapter:

[4] A. Author, "Title of chapter," in Book Title, Edition, Ed. City, State: Publisher, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ.

Website/Online:

[5] A. Author. "Title of webpage." Website Name. URL (accessed Month Day, Year).

Technical Report:

[6] A. Author, "Title," Institution, City, State, Rep. Number, Month Year.

Thesis/Dissertation:

[7] A. Author, "Title," Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Abbrev., University, City, State, Year.

Patent:

[8] A. Inventor, "Title," Country Patent Number, Month Day, Year.

Standards:

[9] Title of Standard, Standard Number, Year.

Key IEEE Rules:

• Number references consecutively in order of appearance
• Use square brackets [1], [2], [3]
• For multiple authors: list all if ≤6; use "et al." if >6
• Use initials for first/middle names
• Abbreviate journal names per IEEE standards
• Include DOI when available
• Maintain consistent formatting

7. Quality Assurance

Before finalizing, verify:

Content:

• [ ] Clear research question/objective
• [ ] Logical flow and organization
• [ ] Adequate source coverage (minimum 15-20 for research paper)
• [ ] All sources verified as peer-reviewed
• [ ] Claims supported by citations
• [ ] Methodology clearly explained (if applicable)
• [ ] Results/findings clearly presented
• [ ] Limitations acknowledged

Technical:

• [ ] IEEE reference format correct
• [ ] All in-text citations match reference list
• [ ] No missing references
• [ ] Consistent citation numbering
• [ ] Proper figure/table captions and numbering

Writing Quality:

• [ ] Academic tone maintained
• [ ] Clear and concise language
• [ ] No grammatical errors
• [ ] Transitions between sections smooth
• [ ] Abstract accurately summarizes paper

Implementation Approach

When creating an academic document:

1. Use web_search extensively to find peer-reviewed sources 2. Verify each source's academic credibility 3. Extract relevant information and synthesize findings 4. Write in formal academic style 5. Integrate citations naturally throughout 6. Generate complete IEEE reference list 7. Create document using appropriate tool (docx, pdf, or markdown)

Reference Resources

For detailed guidance on specific aspects:

• Academic writing conventions: See ACADEMIC-WRITING.md
• IEEE citation examples: See IEEE-CITATION-GUIDE.md
• Source verification: See SOURCE-VERIFICATION.md

Output Format

Create documents as:

• DOCX: For full research papers, theses, dissertations (use docx skill)
• PDF: For final submission versions (use pdf skill)
• Markdown: For drafts, literature reviews, or online publication

Notes

• Always prioritize source quality over quantity
• Recent sources (last 5-7 years) preferred unless historical context required
• Maintain research integrity throughout
• When in doubt about a source, search for additional verification
• Use web_fetch to access full articles when available

Research Paper Template

Title: [Enter Research Paper Title Here - Should be Concise and Descriptive]

Author(s): [Author Name(s)] Affiliation: [Institution/Department] Email: [Corresponding author email]

---

Abstract

[150-250 words summarizing the entire paper. Include: background, objective, methodology, key results, and conclusion. Write this LAST after completing the paper.]

Keywords: keyword1, keyword2, keyword3, keyword4, keyword5

---

I. Introduction

[Background and context - 2-3 paragraphs]

[Problem statement - 1-2 paragraphs explaining the gap or issue]

[Research objectives/questions - Clear statement of what this paper aims to achieve]

[Significance/contribution - Why this work matters]

[Paper organization - Brief overview of remaining sections]

---

II. Literature Review / Related Work

A. Subsection Title

[Review existing research organized thematically]

[Identify what has been done, what gaps exist]

B. Subsection Title

[Continue organizing by themes or chronologically]

[Synthesize findings, don't just summarize]

C. Research Gap

[Clearly articulate what is missing in current research]

[Explain how your work addresses this gap]

---

III. Methodology

A. Research Design

[Describe overall approach: experimental, analytical, survey, etc.]

B. Data Collection

[Explain how data was gathered]

[Sample size, selection criteria]

C. Analysis Methods

[Statistical methods, algorithms, frameworks used]

[Justification for chosen methods]

D. Tools and Materials

[Software, hardware, datasets used]

---

IV. Results

A. Result Category 1

[Present findings clearly and objectively]

[Use figures and tables to support]

Table I: Sample Table Title

B. Result Category 2

[Continue presenting results systematically]

[Refer to figures: "Fig. 1 shows..."]

---

V. Discussion

A. Interpretation of Results

[Explain what the results mean]

[Connect to research questions/objectives]

B. Comparison with Existing Work

[How do results compare to literature?]

[Agreements and contradictions]

C. Implications

[Practical or theoretical significance]

[Broader impact of findings]

D. Limitations

[Acknowledge study limitations honestly]

[Discuss how they affect conclusions]

---

VI. Conclusion

[Summarize key findings - 1 paragraph]

[Restate contributions - 1 paragraph]

[Future research directions - 1 paragraph]

---

Acknowledgment

[Optional: Acknowledge funding, collaborators, or assistance]

---

References

[1] First Author, Second Author, and Third Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year.

[2] Author Name, "Title of conference paper," in Proc. Conference Name, City, Country, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ.

[3] Author Name, Book Title, Edition. City, State: Publisher, Year.

[Continue numbering sequentially in order of appearance in text]

---

Writing Guidelines

Before You Start:

1. Define your research question clearly 2. Conduct thorough literature review 3. Organize your thoughts and create outline 4. Gather all data and materials

While Writing:

1. Use formal, objective language 2. Support all claims with citations 3. Maintain logical flow between paragraphs 4. Use clear topic sentences 5. Include transitions 6. Define technical terms 7. Number figures and tables consecutively

After Drafting:

1. Revise for clarity and concision 2. Check all citations match references 3. Verify IEEE format compliance 4. Proofread for grammar and spelling 5. Have colleagues review 6. Read aloud to catch awkward phrasing

Common Mistakes to Avoid:

• Unsupported claims (always cite)
• Passive voice overuse
• Vague statements ("many researchers")
• Missing transitions
• Inconsistent terminology
• Plagiarism
• Informal language
• Missing citations

---

Checklist Before Submission

• [ ] Title is clear and descriptive
• [ ] Abstract is 150-250 words
• [ ] All sections present and complete
• [ ] Every claim cited appropriately
• [ ] All references in IEEE format
• [ ] References numbered correctly
• [ ] Figures and tables properly labeled
• [ ] Consistent terminology throughout
• [ ] Grammar and spelling checked
• [ ] Formatting matches journal requirements
• [ ] Word count within limits
• [ ] Co-authors reviewed and approved
• [ ] Conflicts of interest disclosed
• [ ] Funding acknowledged

Academic Research Writer Skill

A comprehensive skill for creating high-quality academic research documents with proper scholarly standards, verified peer-reviewed sources, and IEEE-format citations.

Purpose

This skill enables Claude to write academic research documents following rigorous academic guidelines, including:

• Proper academic writing conventions
• Source verification from peer-reviewed databases
• IEEE standard reference formatting
• Research integrity and quality assurance

Skill Contents

SKILL.md

Main instruction file containing:

• Core workflow for academic writing
• Source discovery and verification protocols
• IEEE reference formatting rules
• Document structure guidelines
• Quality assurance checklists

References (references/)

Detailed guides loaded as needed:

• ACADEMIC-WRITING.md: Comprehensive academic writing conventions, tone, structure, and discipline-specific guidelines
• IEEE-CITATION-GUIDE.md: Complete IEEE citation format with examples for all source types
• SOURCE-VERIFICATION.md: Guide to identifying peer-reviewed sources, evaluating quality, and avoiding predatory publishers

Scripts (scripts/)

• ieee_formatter.py: Python utility for formatting IEEE references programmatically

Assets (assets/)

• research_paper_template.md: Template for standard academic research papers with section guidelines

Usage

The skill automatically triggers when users request:

• Research papers
• Literature reviews
• Technical reports
• Academic proposals
• Thesis/dissertation chapters
• Conference papers

Key Features

1. Source Verification: Ensures all sources are peer-reviewed from reputable databases 2. IEEE Citations: Generates accurate IEEE-format references 3. Academic Standards: Maintains scholarly writing quality 4. Multiple Formats: Creates documents as DOCX, PDF, or Markdown 5. Quality Assurance: Built-in verification checklists

Supported Databases

• Google Scholar
• IEEE Xplore
• PubMed
• ACM Digital Library
• arXiv (with preprint notation)
• ScienceDirect
• JSTOR
• And other discipline-specific databases

Document Types Supported

• Research papers
• Literature reviews
• Technical reports
• Conference papers
• Theses and dissertations
• Academic proposals
• Review articles

Installation

Upload the skill zip file to Claude via the Skills interface.

Version

1.0 - Initial release

Academic Writing Conventions

Table of Contents

1. Academic Tone and Voice 2. Sentence and Paragraph Construction 3. Argumentation and Logic 4. Common Errors to Avoid 5. Discipline-Specific Conventions

1. Academic Tone and Voice

Formality Levels

High Formality (STEM, Law, Medicine):

• Avoid contractions (use "cannot" not "can't")
• Minimize personal pronouns
• Use passive voice strategically
• Employ technical terminology precisely

Moderate Formality (Social Sciences, Humanities):

• Personal pronouns acceptable in methodology
• Active voice preferred for clarity
• Balance between accessibility and precision

Objectivity

Maintain neutrality:

• Present multiple perspectives
• Acknowledge counterarguments
• Use hedging language: "suggests," "appears," "may indicate"
• Avoid absolute statements: "proves," "always," "never"

Hedge appropriately:

• Strong evidence: "demonstrates," "shows," "indicates"
• Moderate evidence: "suggests," "implies," "may reflect"
• Weak evidence: "might," "could," "appears to"

Precision

Be specific:

• ❌ "Many studies show..."
• ✅ "A meta-analysis of 47 studies [1] demonstrates..."

Use technical terms correctly:

• Define specialized terms on first use
• Maintain consistency in terminology
• Use standard abbreviations

2. Sentence and Paragraph Construction

Sentence Structure

Clarity principles:

• One main idea per sentence
• Subject-verb proximity
• Active voice for clarity (when appropriate)
• Vary sentence length for readability

Examples:

❌ Weak: "It was found by the researchers that the algorithm performed better." ✅ Strong: "The algorithm demonstrated superior performance [1]."

❌ Weak: "There are many factors that contribute to climate change." ✅ Strong: "Multiple factors contribute to climate change, including greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and industrial activity [2]."

Paragraph Structure

Standard academic paragraph:

1. Topic sentence: Introduces main idea 2. Evidence: Supporting data, citations, examples 3. Analysis: Interpretation and explanation 4. Link: Connection to thesis or transition to next point

Example:

"Machine learning algorithms have transformed medical diagnostics [Topic]. Recent studies demonstrate that deep learning models achieve diagnostic accuracy comparable to expert physicians in radiology [1], dermatology [2], and pathology [3] [Evidence]. This performance stems from the algorithms' ability to recognize complex patterns in large datasets that may elude human observation [Analysis]. These advances suggest a paradigm shift in clinical decision-making processes [Link]."

Transitions

Between paragraphs:

• However, Moreover, Furthermore
• In contrast, Similarly, Conversely
• Consequently, Therefore, Thus
• First, Second, Finally

Within paragraphs:

• Additionally, Also, Furthermore
• For example, For instance, Specifically
• In other words, That is to say
• Nevertheless, Nonetheless, Still

3. Argumentation and Logic

Thesis Development

Strong thesis characteristics:

• Specific and focused
• Arguable (not self-evident)
• Supported by evidence
• Addresses "so what?" question

Examples:

❌ Weak: "Social media affects society." ✅ Strong: "Social media platforms' algorithmic curation of content contributes to political polarization by creating echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and limit exposure to diverse viewpoints."

Evidence Integration

Citation placement:

Author-prominent: "Smith et al. [1] argue that quantum computing will revolutionize cryptography."

Information-prominent: "Quantum computing threatens current cryptographic methods [1], [2]."

Synthesis of multiple sources: "While some researchers emphasize the benefits of AI in education [1], [3], others highlight potential risks [2], [4]."

Logical Fallacies to Avoid

1. Hasty generalization: Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence 2. False causation: Assuming correlation implies causation 3. Appeal to authority: Relying solely on credentials without evidence 4. Straw man: Misrepresenting opposing arguments 5. Cherry picking: Selecting only supporting evidence

4. Common Errors to Avoid

Wordiness

❌ "Due to the fact that" ✅ "Because"

❌ "In order to" ✅ "To"

❌ "It is important to note that" ✅ Delete (unnecessary)

Redundancy

❌ "Past history," "future plans," "advance warning" ✅ "History," "plans," "warning"

Vague Language

❌ "Things," "stuff," "a lot," "very" ✅ Specific nouns and precise quantifiers

Inappropriate Register

❌ "The data is super interesting and shows..." ✅ "The data reveals significant patterns..."

Anthropomorphism

❌ "The study wants to prove..." ✅ "This study aims to demonstrate..."

❌ "The paper believes that..." ✅ "This paper argues that..."

5. Discipline-Specific Conventions

STEM Fields

Characteristics:

• Emphasis on methodology and reproducibility
• Extensive use of figures, tables, equations
• Passive voice acceptable in methods sections
• Present tense for established facts, past tense for specific studies

Example: "Samples were collected from five sites (Methods). Figure 1 shows the temperature distribution (Results). These findings indicate that thermal gradients affect reaction rates (Discussion)."

Social Sciences

Characteristics:

• Theoretical frameworks prominently discussed
• Qualitative and quantitative methods
• First-person acceptable in reflective methodology
• Past tense for research conducted, present for ongoing debate

Example: "Previous research suggests that socioeconomic factors influence educational outcomes [1]. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 participants to explore this relationship."

Humanities

Characteristics:

• Emphasis on interpretation and analysis
• Extensive engagement with primary texts
• Present tense for discussing texts/artworks
• More flexible citation practices (footnotes common)

Example: "In Pride and Prejudice, Austen critiques the marriage market of Regency England. Elizabeth Bennet's refusal of Mr. Collins represents a radical assertion of female autonomy."

Engineering

Characteristics:

• Focus on problem-solving and implementation
• Detailed technical specifications
• Extensive use of diagrams and schematics
• Clear delineation of requirements and results

Example: "The proposed architecture achieves 95% accuracy with 40% lower computational complexity than existing methods [1]. Figure 2 illustrates the system design."

Best Practices Summary

1. Clarity over complexity: Simple, direct language conveys ideas more effectively 2. Evidence-based claims: Support all assertions with citations 3. Logical structure: Organize ideas hierarchically and sequentially 4. Consistent terminology: Use terms uniformly throughout 5. Appropriate tone: Match formality to discipline and audience 6. Active engagement: Show critical thinking, not just summary 7. Revision: Multiple drafts improve quality significantly

Self-Review Checklist

• [ ] Each paragraph has clear topic sentence
• [ ] Claims supported by evidence
• [ ] Transitions between ideas smooth
• [ ] Tone formal and objective
• [ ] Technical terms defined
• [ ] No logical fallacies
• [ ] Sentence variety maintained
• [ ] Citations integrated smoothly
• [ ] Discipline conventions followed
• [ ] "So what?" question answered

IEEE Citation Guide

Table of Contents

1. General IEEE Rules 2. Detailed Format Examples 3. Special Cases 4. In-Text Citation Patterns 5. Common Mistakes 6. Quick Reference Table

1. General IEEE Rules

Basic Principles

Numbering:

• Number references consecutively in order of first appearance in text
• Use square brackets [1], [2], [3]
• References cited multiple times keep original number

Author Names:

• Format: First Initial(s). Last Name
• List all authors if six or fewer
• Use "et al." after first author if more than six
• Separate authors with commas, "and" before last author

Punctuation:

• Use commas between reference elements
• End with period
• Italicize journal/book titles
• Use quotation marks for article/chapter titles

Abbreviations

Months: Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, Jun., Jul., Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov., Dec.

Common Terms:

• vol. (volume)
• no. (number)
• pp. (pages)
• ed. (edition or editor)
• Proc. (Proceedings)
• Conf. (Conference)
• Int. (International)
• Dept. (Department)
• Univ. (University)
• Rep. (Report)

2. Detailed Format Examples

Journal Articles

Standard format:

[1] A. Author, B. Author, and C. Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year.

With DOI:

[2] A. Author, B. Author, and C. Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year, doi: 10.1234/example.

Online/Open Access:

[3] A. Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1234/example

Accepted for publication:

[4] A. Author, "Title," Journal Name, to be published.

In press:

[5] A. Author, "Title," Journal Name, in press.

Examples:

[1] J. Smith, R. Johnson, and M. Williams, "Deep learning approaches for medical image analysis," IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 234-245, Mar. 2023.

[2] L. Chen et al., "Quantum computing applications in cryptography," Nature Quantum Inf., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 112-128, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00234-5.

[3] K. Anderson, "Blockchain security protocols," ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 4, article 89, Apr. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3578234

Conference Papers

Standard format:

[1] A. Author and B. Author, "Title of paper," in Proc. Conference Name, City, State/Country, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ.

With DOI:

[2] A. Author, "Title," in Proc. Conf. Name, City, Country, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ, doi: 10.1234/example.

Unpublished but presented:

[3] A. Author, "Title," presented at Conf. Name, City, Country, Month Year.

Examples:

[1] P. Kumar and S. Patel, "Machine learning for network optimization," in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Rome, Italy, 2023, pp. 456-461.

[2] M. Zhang, "Edge computing architectures," in Proc. 45th ACM Symp. Theory Comput., Boston, MA, USA, 2023, pp. 1234-1240, doi: 10.1145/3234567.3234890.

[3] R. Taylor, "Novel cryptographic methods," presented at RSA Conf., San Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 2023.

Books

Complete book:

[1] A. Author, Title of Book, Edition. City, State: Publisher, Year.

With volume:

[2] A. Author, Title of Book, Edition, vol. X. City, State: Publisher, Year.

Chapter in edited book:

[3] A. Author, "Title of chapter," in Book Title, Edition, Ed. City, State: Publisher, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ.

Examples:

[1] D. Patterson and J. Hennessy, Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, 6th ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2017.

[2] I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2016.

[3] M. Nielsen, "Neural networks and deep learning," in Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, A. Editor, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2020, pp. 145-178.

Technical Reports

Standard format:

[1] A. Author, "Title of report," Institution, City, State, Rep. Number, Month Year.

Available online:

[2] A. Author, "Title," Institution, City, State, Rep. Number, Month Year. [Online]. Available: URL

Examples:

[1] R. Brooks, "Artificial intelligence in robotics," MIT Computer Sci. Artif. Intell. Lab., Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep. MIT-CSAIL-TR-2023-001, Jan. 2023.

[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Cybersecurity framework," NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, NIST SP 800-53, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/

Theses and Dissertations

Standard format:

[1] A. Author, "Title of thesis," M.S. thesis/Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Abbrev., University, City, State, Year.

Examples:

[1] S. Thompson, "Optimization algorithms for large-scale systems," Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, USA, 2023.

[2] J. Martinez, "Novel approaches to data compression," M.S. thesis, Dept. Comput. Sci., MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022.

Online Sources

Websites:

[1] A. Author. "Title of webpage." Website Name. URL (accessed Month Day, Year).

Without author:

[2] "Title of webpage," Website Name. URL (accessed Month Day, Year).

Examples:

[1] T. Brown. "Language models are few-shot learners." OpenAI Blog. https://openai.com/blog/gpt-3 (accessed Jan. 15, 2023).

[2] "Python documentation," Python Software Foundation. https://docs.python.org/3/ (accessed Mar. 10, 2023).

Standards

Format:

[1] Title of Standard, Standard Number, Year.

Example:

[1] IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic, IEEE Std 754-2019, Jul. 2019.

Patents

Format:

[1] A. Inventor, "Title of patent," Country Patent Number, Month Day, Year.

Example:

[1] J. Smith, "Method for data encryption," U.S. Patent 10,234,567, Mar. 19, 2019.

Preprints (arXiv)

Format:

[1] A. Author et al., "Title," arXiv preprint arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX, Month Year.

Example:

[1] A. Vaswani et al., "Attention is all you need," arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03762, Jun. 2017.

3. Special Cases

Multiple Works by Same Author(s)

Number chronologically and use original numbers:

[1] J. Smith, "First paper," ...2022.
[2] J. Smith, "Second paper," ...2023.

Text cites: [1], [2]

Multiple Citations in One Bracket

Separate papers:

[1], [2], [3] or [1]-[3]

Same author, different papers:

Smith [1], [2] or Smith [1]-[3]

No Author Available

Use organization or "Anonymous":

[1] National Research Council, Title, ...
[2] Anonymous, "Title," ...

Non-English Sources

With translation:

[1] A. Author, "Titre en français (Title in French)," ...

Original language kept:

[1] A. Author, "原题 (Original title)," ...

4. In-Text Citation Patterns

Single Reference

"Recent studies demonstrate improved accuracy [1]."

"Smith et al. [1] proposed a novel algorithm..."

Multiple References

Sequential: "Several studies [1]-[4] confirm..."

Non-sequential: "Previous work [1], [3], [7] addresses..."

Reference in Sentence

"As shown in [1], the method achieves..."

"The algorithm described in [5] outperforms..."

Multiple Authors

Parenthetical: "The technique improves efficiency [1]."

Narrative: "Smith et al. [1] demonstrate that..."

Note: Always use "et al." in text even if all authors listed in reference

5. Common Mistakes

❌ Incorrect Formats

Wrong:

[1] Smith, J., Johnson, R. (2023). "Title of article." Journal Name, Vol. 42, No. 3, Pages 234-245.

Correct:

[1] J. Smith and R. Johnson, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 234-245, Mar. 2023.

❌ Author Name Format

Wrong:

• Smith, John (APA style)
• John Smith
• SMITH, J.

Correct:

• J. Smith
• J. R. Smith

❌ Punctuation Errors

Wrong:

• [1] J. Smith; "Title;" Journal; vol. 1; 2023
• [1] J. Smith. "Title." Journal. vol. 1. 2023

Correct:

• [1] J. Smith, "Title," Journal, vol. 1, 2023.

❌ Title Capitalization

Wrong:

• "The Effect Of Temperature On Reaction Rates" (title case)

Correct:

• "The effect of temperature on reaction rates" (sentence case)

❌ Page Number Format

Wrong:

• p. 234-245
• pages 234-245

Correct:

• pp. 234-245

6. Quick Reference Table

Reference Management Tips

1. Maintain consistency: Follow format exactly throughout 2. Verify all details: Check author names, dates, page numbers 3. Include DOI when available: Improves discoverability 4. Double-check URLs: Ensure links work 5. Sort references: Number in order of appearance 6. Cross-check citations: Every [X] must have reference [X] 7. Use tools carefully: Reference managers may have errors

Journal Name Abbreviations

Use IEEE standard abbreviations:

• Transactions → Trans.
• Journal → J.
• Proceedings → Proc.
• International → Int.
• Computer → Comput.
• Magazine → Mag.
• Communications → Commun.
• Technology → Technol.

Example:

• Full: "IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence"
• Abbreviated: "IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell."

Source Verification Guide

Table of Contents

1. Identifying Peer-Reviewed Sources 2. Academic Database Overview 3. Source Quality Assessment 4. Predatory Publishing Warning Signs 5. Verification Checklist 6. Citation Metrics and Impact

1. Identifying Peer-Reviewed Sources

What is Peer Review?

Peer review is a quality control process where experts in the field evaluate research before publication. Legitimate peer review involves:

• Expert evaluation: Multiple qualified reviewers assess methodology, validity, and significance
• Blind or double-blind process: Reviewer/author identities may be hidden to reduce bias
• Revision requirements: Authors typically must address reviewer concerns
• Editorial oversight: Editors make final publication decisions based on reviews

Indicators of Peer Review

Strong indicators:

• Published in indexed journals (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed)
• Journal describes peer review process on website
• Established publication history (>5 years)
• Affiliated with reputable academic organizations (IEEE, ACM, APA, etc.)
• Selective acceptance rates mentioned
• Detailed author guidelines for submission

Verification steps: 1. Check journal website for "About" or "Submission" sections 2. Look for editorial board with institutional affiliations 3. Verify journal indexing status 4. Check journal's impact factor or citation metrics 5. Search for journal in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or Ulrichsweb

Publication Types by Peer Review Status

Peer-Reviewed:

• Academic journal articles
• Conference papers from major conferences
• Book chapters in academic publishers
• Doctoral dissertations (university-reviewed)

Not Peer-Reviewed (use cautiously):

• Newspaper articles
• Magazine articles
• Blog posts
• White papers
• Technical documentation
• Preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv) - not yet peer-reviewed but may be acceptable in fast-moving fields
• Books (generally not peer-reviewed in same way)

Gray area:

• Conference abstracts (minimal review)
• Posters (limited review)
• Workshop papers (varies by venue)
• Technical reports (institutional review, not external peer review)

2. Academic Database Overview

General Interdisciplinary

Google Scholar (scholar.google.com)

• Scope: All academic disciplines
• Coverage: Broadest, includes preprints, theses, books
• Strengths: Comprehensive, easy to use, citation tracking
• Limitations: No quality filter, includes predatory journals
• Best for: Initial broad searches, finding recent work

Web of Science

• Scope: Selective across all disciplines
• Coverage: High-quality journals only
• Strengths: Quality control, citation analysis, impact factors
• Limitations: Subscription required, more limited coverage
• Best for: High-impact research, citation metrics

Scopus

• Scope: All academic disciplines
• Coverage: Large curated database
• Strengths: Quality journals, author profiles, metrics
• Limitations: Subscription required
• Best for: Comprehensive literature review

STEM Databases

IEEE Xplore (ieeexplore.ieee.org)

• Disciplines: Electrical engineering, computer science, electronics
• Coverage: IEEE publications, conferences, standards
• Strengths: High-quality technical content, standards access
• Best for: Engineering and CS research

PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

• Disciplines: Medicine, biology, health sciences
• Coverage: MEDLINE plus additional life science journals
• Strengths: Free access, highly curated, MeSH indexing
• Best for: Biomedical research

arXiv (arxiv.org)

• Disciplines: Physics, mathematics, CS, statistics
• Coverage: Preprints (not peer-reviewed)
• Strengths: Latest research, free access, quick dissemination
• Limitations: Not peer-reviewed, quality varies
• Best for: Cutting-edge research in physics/math/CS

ACM Digital Library (dl.acm.org)

• Disciplines: Computer science, information technology
• Coverage: ACM publications and conferences
• Strengths: Computer science focus, high-quality venues
• Best for: CS and IT research

Social Sciences & Humanities

JSTOR

• Disciplines: Humanities, social sciences
• Coverage: Archived scholarly journals, books
• Strengths: Historical depth, high-quality sources
• Best for: Historical research, humanities

PsycINFO

• Disciplines: Psychology, behavioral sciences
• Coverage: APA publications, international psychology journals
• Strengths: Comprehensive psychology coverage
• Best for: Psychology and behavioral research

SSRN (Social Science Research Network)

• Disciplines: Social sciences, humanities
• Coverage: Working papers, preprints
• Limitations: Not peer-reviewed
• Best for: Latest social science research

Discipline-Specific

ScienceDirect: Chemistry, materials science, engineering ERIC: Education research EconLit: Economics MathSciNet: Mathematics ChemSpider: Chemistry GeoRef: Earth sciences

3. Source Quality Assessment

Evaluating Journal Quality

High-quality indicators:

• Indexed in major databases (WoS, Scopus, PubMed)
• Impact factor >1.0 (discipline-dependent)
• Published by reputable academic publishers:
• Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, IEEE, ACM, Nature, Science, AAAS
• University presses (Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, etc.)
• Long publication history (>10 years)
• Selective acceptance rate (<30%)
• Clear peer review process described
• Distinguished editorial board with major institutions

Red flags:

• Excessive promotional emails soliciting papers
• Promises of rapid publication (<1 month)
• High article processing charges (>$2000) without clear reputation
• No clear peer review process
• Generic journal name ("International Journal of Science")
• Poor website quality or multiple domains
• Editorial board with no institutional affiliations or stock photos

Evaluating Author Credibility

Positive indicators:

• University or research institution affiliation
• Multiple publications in field
• H-index appropriate for career stage
• Research funded by recognized organizations (NSF, NIH, etc.)
• Collaboration with established researchers
• Institutional email address

Verification:

• Check author's institutional webpage
• Review publication history on Google Scholar
• Verify current affiliation
• Check for research grants and funding

Evaluating Article Quality

Methodology assessment:

• Clear research questions/hypotheses
• Appropriate research design
• Sufficient sample size
• Proper statistical analysis
• Acknowledged limitations
• Reproducible methods

Content quality:

• Comprehensive literature review
• Logical argumentation
• Clear contribution to field
• Appropriate conclusions from data
• Proper acknowledgment of funding/conflicts
• Well-structured and clearly written

4. Predatory Publishing Warning Signs

What is Predatory Publishing?

Predatory publishers exploit open-access model by charging fees without providing proper peer review or editorial services. They harm research integrity by:

• Publishing low-quality or fraudulent research
• Misleading researchers about journal quality
• Damaging researcher reputations
• Contaminating academic literature

Warning Signs

Journal-level red flags:

1. Aggressive solicitation: Excessive spam emails inviting submissions 2. Rapid publication promises: Guaranteed acceptance within weeks 3. Generic naming: "International Journal of Advanced Research" 4. Misleading metrics: Fake impact factors or made-up indices 5. Unclear peer review: No description of review process 6. High fees, low service: Expensive APCs without quality services 7. Poor website: Grammar errors, broken links, stock photos 8. Fake editorial boards: Non-existent people or unauthorized use of names 9. Lack of indexing: Not in major databases (WoS, Scopus, DOAJ) 10. Address inconsistencies: Multiple addresses, PO boxes only

Submission red flags:

• Instant acceptance letters
• No reviewer comments
• Request for payment immediately after submission
• Editors who don't respond to queries
• No retraction policy
• Copyright assignment unclear

Verification Resources

Check these resources:

1. Think.Check.Submit (thinkchecksubmit.org)

• Checklist for evaluating journals

2. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (doaj.org)

• Whitelist of legitimate OA journals

3. Cabells Predatory Reports (subscription)

• Blacklist of predatory journals

4. Web of Science Master Journal List

• Indexed legitimate journals

5. Scopus Source List

• Indexed legitimate journals

6. Journal Citation Reports

• Impact factors for legitimate journals

Historical note:

• Beall's List (discontinued 2017) was a prominent predatory journal list
• Some archives exist but use with caution as they're outdated

5. Verification Checklist

Quick Verification Protocol

For each source, verify:

Level 1 - Basic Verification (Required for all sources):

• [ ] Published in identifiable journal/venue
• [ ] Authors have institutional affiliations
• [ ] Year of publication clear
• [ ] Peer-review status determinable

Level 2 - Quality Verification (Required for key sources):

• [ ] Journal indexed in major database (verify on WoS/Scopus)
• [ ] Journal has impact factor or citation metrics
• [ ] Publisher is reputable
• [ ] Editorial board exists with real, affiliated researchers
• [ ] Peer review process described
• [ ] Author credentials verifiable

Level 3 - Content Verification (Required for controversial/critical claims):

• [ ] Methodology appropriate and clearly described
• [ ] Results support conclusions
• [ ] Limitations acknowledged
• [ ] Conflicts of interest disclosed
• [ ] Data availability stated
• [ ] Ethical approval mentioned (if human/animal research)

Level 4 - Impact Verification (For establishing importance):

• [ ] Citation count appropriate for publication date
• [ ] Cited by other peer-reviewed sources
• [ ] Part of ongoing research conversation
• [ ] Findings replicated or confirmed (if applicable)

Red Flag Scoring

Assign concern levels:

High concern (Do not use):

• 3+ predatory indicators
• No verifiable peer review
• Anonymous or fake authors
• Retracted or disputed findings

Moderate concern (Use with caution):

• 1-2 predatory indicators
• Limited citation or impact
• Unclear methodology
• Preliminary findings only

Low concern (Generally acceptable):

• Established journal
• Clear peer review
• Verified authors
• Appropriate methodology

6. Citation Metrics and Impact

Understanding Citation Metrics

Journal Impact Factor (JIF):

• Average citations per article in previous 2 years
• Discipline-dependent (compare within field)
• Physics/Medicine: 3-5 = good, >10 = excellent
• Social Sciences: 1-2 = good, >5 = excellent
• Limitations: Can be manipulated, favors review articles

H-Index (Author metric):

• H papers with at least H citations each
• Career-stage dependent
• New researcher: 5-10
• Mid-career: 15-30
• Senior researcher: 30+
• Limitations: Favors older researchers, quantity over quality

CiteScore:

• Citations in year X to papers published in years X-3
• Alternative to Impact Factor
• Generally higher numbers than JIF

SJR (SCImago Journal Rank):

• Weighted citation metric (prestigious journals count more)
• Alternative quality indicator

Using Metrics Appropriately

Do:

• Compare within same discipline
• Consider multiple metrics
• Account for article age (older = more time for citations)
• Use as one quality indicator among many

Don't:

• Rely solely on metrics
• Compare across disciplines
• Assume high citations = truth
• Ignore recent, potentially important work

Alternative Impact Indicators

Article-level metrics:

• Download counts
• Altmetrics (social media mentions, news coverage)
• Post-publication peer review

Journal-level alternatives:

• Acceptance rates
• Time to publication
• Editorial board quality
• Publisher reputation

Best Practices Summary

Before Using a Source:

1. Verify venue: Check if journal/conference is indexed 2. Check authors: Confirm institutional affiliations 3. Assess peer review: Ensure proper review process 4. Evaluate content: Review methodology and conclusions 5. Cross-reference: Find corroborating sources 6. Check citations: See if others cite this work positively

When in Doubt:

• Search for journal in DOAJ or WoS
• Check if other researchers cite this work
• Look for author's other publications
• Ask librarian or subject expert
• Use higher-standard source instead

Document Your Process:

• Keep notes on verification steps
• Record database searches conducted
• Note why sources included/excluded
• Maintain audit trail for thesis/dissertation

Common Questions

Q: Can I use preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv)? A: In fast-moving fields (CS, physics), preprints acceptable but note "preprint" status. Prefer published versions when available.

Q: How recent should sources be? A: Generally last 5-7 years, but depends on field. Foundational older work appropriate. Rapidly evolving fields need more recent sources.

Q: What if I can't verify a source? A: Don't use it. Find alternative verified sources instead.

Q: Are all Google Scholar results acceptable? A: No. Google Scholar includes predatory journals, theses, and non-peer-reviewed work. Always verify independently.

Q: Can I cite Wikipedia? A: No for academic papers. Use Wikipedia to find original sources, then cite those directly.

Q: What about conference papers vs. journals? A: Top-tier conferences (especially in CS) equivalent to journals. Lower-tier conferences less rigorous. Check conference ranking.

Academic Research Writer Skill - User Guide

Overview

The Academic Research Writer skill transforms Claude into a specialized academic writing assistant that follows rigorous scholarly standards, verifies peer-reviewed sources, and generates IEEE-formatted citations.

What This Skill Does

✅ Writes research documents following academic guidelines ✅ Finds and verifies peer-reviewed sources from scholarly databases ✅ Generates IEEE citations in proper format ✅ Maintains academic rigor throughout the writing process ✅ Creates multiple formats (DOCX, PDF, Markdown) ✅ Quality checks all sources and references

Installation

1. Download the academic-research-writer.zip file 2. Go to Claude's interface 3. Click on "Skills" in the menu 4. Click "Upload Skill" 5. Select the downloaded zip file 6. The skill is now available for use

How to Use

Basic Usage

Simply ask Claude to write an academic document. The skill automatically triggers for:

Example prompts:

• "Write a research paper on machine learning in healthcare"
• "Create a literature review on blockchain security"
• "Help me write the methodology section for my thesis"
• "Write a conference paper on quantum computing applications"

Specifying Requirements

Provide more details for better results:

Write a 10-page research paper on:
- Topic: Deep learning for medical diagnosis
- Focus: Recent advances (last 5 years)
- Required sections: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, 
  Results, Discussion, Conclusion
- Target: IEEE journal submission
- Format: DOCX with IEEE references

Step-by-Step Process

When you make a request, the skill will:

1. Clarify requirements - Confirm document type, length, focus areas 2. Research planning - Identify key topics and search strategies 3. Source discovery - Search academic databases for peer-reviewed sources 4. Source verification - Verify credibility and peer-review status 5. Content writing - Draft sections with proper academic tone 6. Citation integration - Add IEEE-formatted citations throughout 7. Reference generation - Create complete IEEE reference list 8. Quality assurance - Verify all requirements met 9. Document creation - Produce final document in requested format

Examples of Documents You Can Create

Research Paper

Create a research paper on "Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery":
- 8000 words
- Include: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, 
  Results, Discussion, Conclusion
- 20+ peer-reviewed references
- IEEE format
- DOCX output

Literature Review

Write a comprehensive literature review on:
Topic: Renewable energy storage technologies
Time frame: 2018-2024
Focus: Battery technologies, grid integration, economic analysis
Length: 6000 words
Format: PDF with IEEE citations

Thesis Chapter

Help me write Chapter 2 (Literature Review) for my thesis on:
- Computer vision in autonomous vehicles
- 15-20 pages
- Cover: traditional approaches, deep learning methods, current challenges
- 30+ academic sources
- University thesis format with IEEE references

Conference Paper

Create a 6-page conference paper for IEEE conference on:
Topic: Edge computing for IoT
Include: Abstract (150 words), Introduction, Related Work, 
Proposed Method, Evaluation, Conclusion
Minimum 15 references
Two-column IEEE conference format

Features in Detail

1. Source Verification

The skill searches and verifies sources from:

Primary Databases:

• Google Scholar - Broad academic search
• IEEE Xplore - Engineering and computer science
• PubMed - Medical and life sciences
• ACM Digital Library - Computer science
• arXiv - Preprints (physics, CS, math)

Verification Process:

• ✓ Confirms peer-review status
• ✓ Checks journal reputation
• ✓ Verifies author credentials
• ✓ Assesses citation impact
• ✓ Identifies predatory publishers

2. IEEE Citation Format

Automatically generates proper IEEE citations for:

• Journal articles
• Conference papers
• Books and chapters
• Websites
• Technical reports
• Theses/dissertations
• Patents
• Standards

Example Output:

[1] J. Smith, R. Johnson, and M. Williams, "Deep learning approaches 
for medical image analysis," IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 42, no. 3, 
pp. 234-245, Mar. 2023.

[2] P. Kumar and S. Patel, "Machine learning for network optimization," 
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Rome, Italy, 2023, pp. 456-461.

3. Academic Writing Standards

Maintains proper:

• Tone: Formal, objective, scholarly
• Structure: Clear organization with logical flow
• Citations: Every claim properly cited
• Language: Precise technical terminology
• Arguments: Evidence-based and logical

4. Quality Assurance

Built-in checks for:

• Source credibility (peer-reviewed only)
• Citation accuracy (all sources verified)
• Reference formatting (IEEE compliance)
• Content quality (methodology, logic, clarity)
• Completeness (all required sections)

Advanced Features

Custom Guidelines

Specify institutional or journal requirements:

Write a research paper following:
- University of XYZ thesis guidelines
- Maximum 12,000 words
- Harvard referencing (instead of IEEE)
- Specific ethical approval statement
- Required appendices

Multiple Iterations

Request revisions and improvements:

Improve the literature review section:
- Add more recent sources (2023-2024)
- Expand discussion of deep learning methods
- Include more quantitative comparisons
- Add a comparison table

Specific Sections

Work on individual sections:

Write just the Methodology section for my paper on:
- Experimental design
- Data collection procedures (survey of 500 participants)
- Statistical analysis methods (regression analysis)
- Validation approach

Tips for Best Results

1. Be Specific About Requirements

❌ "Write a paper on AI" ✅ "Write a 10-page research paper on AI applications in healthcare, focusing on diagnostic imaging, with 20+ peer-reviewed sources from 2020-2024"

2. Specify Target Audience

• Academic journal (which journal?)
• Conference (which conference?)
• Thesis/dissertation (which university?)
• General academic audience

3. Indicate Preferred Structure

Specify if you need:

• Standard structure (Intro, Lit Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)
• Journal-specific format
• Short communication format
• Extended abstract format

4. Mention Constraints

• Word/page limits
• Number of references required
• Specific topics to cover/exclude
• Methodological requirements

5. Request Specific Focus

• Theoretical vs. applied
• Broad overview vs. deep dive
• Comparative analysis
• Critical review

Common Use Cases

For Students

• Thesis and dissertation chapters
• Course research papers
• Literature reviews
• Research proposals
• Seminar papers

For Researchers

• Journal article drafts
• Conference paper submissions
• Grant proposals
• Technical reports
• Review articles

For Academics

• Book chapters
• Research summaries
• State-of-the-art reviews
• Position papers
• White papers

Output Formats

DOCX (Microsoft Word)

• Fully editable
• Formatted for submissions
• Track changes compatible
• Best for: Journals, theses

PDF

• Print-ready
• Professional appearance
• Best for: Final submissions, archiving

Markdown

• Plain text with formatting
• Version control friendly
• Easy to convert
• Best for: Drafts, collaboration, online publication

Troubleshooting

"Not enough recent sources found"

Solution: Adjust time frame or broaden search terms

"Can't verify source credibility"

Solution: Skill will search for alternative verified sources

"References not in proper format"

Solution: Skill automatically reformats to IEEE standards

"Document too technical/too simple"

Solution: Specify desired complexity level in request

Limitations

What the skill does NOT do:

• ❌ Fabricate data or sources
• ❌ Use non-peer-reviewed sources (unless explicitly requested for preprints)
• ❌ Plagiarize content
• ❌ Make unsupported claims
• ❌ Access paywalled articles (searches abstracts and metadata)
• ❌ Guarantee publication acceptance

Ethical Guidelines:

• All sources properly cited
• No plagiarism
• Transparent about limitations
• Acknowledges data availability constraints

Best Practices

1. Start with clear objectives - Know what you want to achieve 2. Review and refine - Treat output as a strong draft, not final 3. Verify critical claims - Check key citations yourself 4. Customize to requirements - Adapt to specific guidelines 5. Iterate as needed - Request improvements and additions 6. Maintain research integrity - Use ethically and honestly

Support and Feedback

For skill improvements or issues:

• Note specific problems encountered
• Provide example prompts that didn't work well
• Suggest additional features needed
• Share successful use cases

Version Information

Current Version: 1.0 Last Updated: October 2025

Additional Resources

The skill includes comprehensive reference guides on:

• Academic writing conventions (discipline-specific)
• Complete IEEE citation examples
• Source verification procedures
• Predatory publisher identification
• Research quality assessment

These are automatically consulted as needed during the writing process.

---

Quick Start Examples

Beginner Example

Write a 5-page research paper on solar energy technologies for beginners 
in the field. Include 10-15 references and make it accessible.

Intermediate Example

Create a literature review on machine learning in climate modeling:
- 8000 words
- Cover 2018-2024 publications
- Focus on: neural networks, data assimilation, uncertainty quantification
- 25+ peer-reviewed sources
- IEEE format

Advanced Example

Write a comprehensive research article for submission to Nature Machine 
Intelligence on:
- Novel deep learning architecture for protein folding prediction
- Include: Abstract (150 words), Introduction, Related Work, Methods 
  (detailed algorithm description), Results (with statistical analysis), 
  Discussion, Conclusion
- 40+ high-impact references (Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, etc.)
- 12,000 words
- Include comparison table with existing methods
- Follow Nature journal formatting

---

Ready to start? Just ask Claude to write your academic document, and the skill will guide you through the process!