Academic Writing prompts

Help me plan this essay.

THE QUESTION OR TITLE:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

SUBJECT AND LEVEL: [DETAIL]
WORD COUNT: [LENGTH]
WHAT I HAVE READ: [YOUR SOURCES AND KEY POINTS]
MY CURRENT THINKING: [WHAT YOU ARE INCLINED TO ARGUE]
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: [PASTE, if you have them]

Produce:

1. THE QUESTION ANALYSED - the command word, the scope, and any limiting phrase. Essays lose marks most often by answering a broader or different question than the one set. State exactly what is in scope and, importantly, what is not.

2. THE ARGUMENT - a single sentence stating what this essay will argue. Not what it will cover. If my current thinking is a topic rather than a position, push me to a position and offer three possible ones.

3. THE ARGUMENT TEST - could a reasonable, informed person disagree with my thesis? If not, it is a statement of the obvious and will score poorly however well written.

4. THE STRUCTURE - sections with word budgets. Each section stating the point it makes and how it advances the argument. Order by the logic of the argument, not by chronology or by the order you read the sources.

5. THE EVIDENCE MAP - from what I said I have read, which source supports which point. Flag any point where I have no evidence yet; that is what to read next, and it is more efficient than reading more generally.

6. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT - the strongest objection to my thesis, and where it is addressed. An essay that ignores the obvious counter-argument reads as naive, and engaging with it seriously is where higher marks are found.

7. THE INTRODUCTION - what it must do: address the question, state the argument, and indicate the route. Not define terms unless the question turns on a definition, and not open with a broad historical gesture.

8. THE CONCLUSION - answering the question, and saying what follows. Not summarising what you just wrote.

9. AGAINST THE CRITERIA - if I gave them, where the marks are and whether this plan targets them.

10. WHAT TO CUT - given the word count, what my plan cannot accommodate. Essays are usually over-planned, and cutting at the plan stage is far cheaper than at the draft stage.

Improve this academic writing.

MY TEXT:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

SUBJECT AND LEVEL: [DETAIL]
WHAT IT IS: [essay / dissertation chapter / paper / report]
FEEDBACK I HAVE HAD: [PASTE, if any]

Produce:

1. WHAT IS UNCLEAR AND WHY - quote each passage and diagnose the cause specifically:
   - Too many ideas in one sentence
   - Nominalisation: a verb turned into a noun, which removes the actor ('an investigation was undertaken' rather than 'we investigated')
   - Passive voice hiding who did what, where it matters
   - Abstraction with no concrete referent
   - A term used before it is defined
   - Hedging stacked so heavily the claim disappears
   - Long noun phrases requiring the reader to hold four words before the meaning arrives

2. THE COMPLEXITY MYTH - academic writing is often deliberately dense because density is mistaken for rigour. It is not. Precision is rigour; density is an obstacle. Say where my text is complex without being more precise, which is the version worth fixing.

3. WHERE COMPLEXITY IS EARNED - the passages that are difficult because the idea is difficult. Leave these alone; simplifying them would make them wrong. Distinguishing these from the previous category is the main judgement here.

4. THE SENTENCE-LEVEL REWRITES - a table: Original | Revised | What changed. Keep the register academic; this is not an instruction to write casually.

5. THE HEDGING AUDIT - academic writing requires appropriate hedging and frequently over-applies it. For each hedged claim: is the uncertainty real and warranted, or is it a reflex? Over-hedging makes it impossible to tell what you are actually claiming, which costs marks.

6. THE SIGNPOSTING - whether the reader can tell where they are in the argument. Academic writing needs more explicit structural signalling than other prose, because the argument is longer.

7. THE PARAGRAPH CHECK - does each paragraph make one point, stated near the start? Paragraphs that arrive at their point in the final sentence force rereading.

8. THE FEEDBACK, INTERPRETED - if I gave any, what it actually means in practical terms. Academic feedback is often terse: 'needs more critical analysis' and 'underdeveloped' have specific meanings.

9. THE PATTERN - the recurring habit that most damages my writing, so I can watch for it rather than fixing instances.

10. THE REVISED PASSAGE - one section rewritten in full, so I can see the difference.

Help me structure a literature review.

MY TOPIC OR RESEARCH QUESTION: [WHAT YOU ARE REVIEWING FOR]
THE SOURCES:
"""
[PASTE YOUR SUMMARIES - author, year, what they found, their method]
"""
LEVEL AND LENGTH: [STAGE AND WORD COUNT]
WHAT IT IS FOR: [essay section / dissertation chapter / paper / standalone review]

Produce:

1. THE ORGANISING PRINCIPLE - the single most important decision, and the one that distinguishes a review from an annotated bibliography. Options: by theme, by theoretical position, by method, chronologically (only if the field genuinely developed in stages), or by the debate. Recommend one for my sources and say why. Never organise source by source; that is a list, not a review.

2. THE THEMES OR POSITIONS - derived from my sources, with which sources sit where. Note where a source belongs in more than one.

3. WHERE SOURCES AGREE - and importantly, whether that agreement is independent. Several papers citing the same original study are one piece of evidence, not several, and reviews frequently present them as a consensus.

4. WHERE THEY DISAGREE - and why: different methods, different populations, different definitions, different periods, or genuine dispute. Explaining the source of disagreement is what a review is for.

5. THE METHODOLOGICAL PATTERN - what methods dominate the field, and what that means for what is known. If every study uses one method, its limitations are the field's limitations.

6. THE QUALITY WEIGHTING - the sources differ in evidential weight. A review that treats every source equally is not critical. Say which carry more and why.

7. THE GAP - what the literature does not answer, which is what justifies my own work. Be specific about the type of gap: no evidence, evidence for a different population, a methodological limitation, or an unresolved contradiction.

8. THE NARRATIVE - the through-line. A good review tells a story about the state of knowledge: what was thought, what changed it, where it stands, what remains open.

9. THE STRUCTURE - sections with word budgets, each stating what it argues about the literature rather than what it covers.

10. WHAT IS MISSING FROM MY SOURCES - given the topic, the work I would expect to see and do not. Mark as [CHECK] rather than asserting.

11. THE CRITICAL VOICE - example sentences showing the difference between reporting a source and evaluating it. This is the most common mark-losing weakness in literature reviews.

Help me with referencing.

CITATION STYLE: [Harvard / APA / MLA / Chicago / Vancouver / other]
MY TEXT:
"""
[PASTE A SECTION WITH YOUR CITATIONS]
"""
MY SOURCES: [PASTE THE DETAILS YOU HAVE]
LEVEL: [STAGE]
WHAT I AM UNSURE ABOUT: [YOUR QUESTION]

Produce:

1. WHAT NEEDS CITING - the rule, applied to my text specifically. Cite: any idea that is not yours, any data, any direct quotation, any paraphrase of a specific argument, and anything contestable. Do not cite: common knowledge in the field, and your own reasoning. Go through my text and flag every sentence that needs a citation and does not have one.

2. THE PARAPHRASE CHECK - the highest-risk area for unintentional plagiarism. A paraphrase that keeps the original sentence structure and swaps synonyms is not a paraphrase; it is a close copy with a citation, and it is treated as plagiarism at most institutions. Check my text for this specifically and quote any instance.

3. HOW TO PARAPHRASE PROPERLY - read, understand, close the source, write from your understanding, then check you have not reproduced the phrasing. Demonstrate with one passage from my text.

4. THE CITATIONS CORRECTED - my in-text citations in the correct format for my style, with errors explained.

5. THE REFERENCE LIST - formatted correctly from the details I gave. Flag any entry where I have not provided enough information, and say exactly what is missing.

6. THE SECONDARY CITATION PROBLEM - where I am citing a source I have not read, via another source. The correct handling for my style, and the strong recommendation to read the original where it matters. Citing something you have not read is how errors propagate.

7. THE QUOTATION RULES - when to quote directly rather than paraphrase, how to format short and long quotations in my style, how to indicate omissions and alterations, and the rule that a quotation must be exact.

8. MY SPECIFIC QUESTION - answered.

9. THE OVER-CITATION CHECK - a sentence with four citations attached usually means the writer has not synthesised. Note where my text does this and what it suggests.

10. THE INTEGRITY NOTE - the practical habits that prevent problems: record the source at the moment you take a note, mark quotations unmistakably in your notes, and never paste source text into your draft intending to rewrite it later. That last one is the most common route to accidental plagiarism.

Citation styles have detailed rules and vary by institution. Check your institution's guide for anything unusual.

Help me plan my research project.

MY TOPIC OR INTEREST: [WHAT YOU WANT TO STUDY]
LEVEL: [undergraduate dissertation / masters / doctoral / other]
TIME AVAILABLE: [HOW LONG]
RESOURCES AND ACCESS: [DATA, PARTICIPANTS, EQUIPMENT, SUPERVISION]
DISCIPLINE AND METHODS I KNOW: [YOUR BACKGROUND]
REQUIREMENTS: [WHAT THE PROPOSAL MUST CONTAIN]

Produce:

1. THE SCOPE REALITY CHECK first. Most proposals at every level are too ambitious, and over-scoping is the single most common cause of projects that fail or finish badly. Given my time and resources, assess whether this is doable and say plainly if it is not.

2. THE NARROWED QUESTION - a specific, answerable research question. 'Investigating X' is a topic; a research question is something that can be answered with the evidence you can actually gather. Offer three, at different scopes, and recommend one.

3. WHY IT IS WORTH ANSWERING - the gap, specifically. What is not known, and why it matters. This must be narrow and concrete, not a claim that the field needs more research.

4. THE METHOD - what you would actually do, step by step. For each step: what it requires, how long it takes, and what could prevent it.

5. THE FEASIBILITY AUDIT - against my stated resources:
   - Do I have access to the data or participants? If this depends on permission I do not yet have, that is the project's biggest risk.
   - Do I have the methodological skills, or is there time to acquire them?
   - Does this need ethical approval, and how long does that take? This is routinely underestimated and can consume a quarter of the timeline.
   - What happens if recruitment or data collection produces less than expected?

6. THE TIMELINE - working backwards from the deadline, with writing time protected. Writing always takes longer than planned, and the common failure is leaving it until data collection is complete.

7. THE RISKS - what could derail this, with a contingency for each. Include the most common one: not getting enough data, and what the fallback analysis would be.

8. THE SMALLER VERSION - the project as it would be if everything went wrong. If that version is still worth doing, the project is well scoped; if not, it needs rethinking.

9. THE PROPOSAL STRUCTURE - against my stated requirements, section by section with word budgets.

10. THE QUESTIONS FOR MY SUPERVISOR - the specific things to check before committing, particularly on scope, access and method.

Help me respond to this feedback.

THE FEEDBACK:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

MY WORK: [PASTE THE RELEVANT SECTION, or describe it]
WHO GAVE IT: [supervisor / marker / peer reviewer / examiner]
WHAT I HAVE TO DO NOW: [revise and resubmit / improve for next time / respond formally]
MY REACTION: [BE HONEST - including if you disagree or feel deflated]

Produce:

1. THE FEEDBACK DECODED - academic feedback is often terse and uses conventions. Translate each comment into what it concretely asks for. 'Needs more critical engagement' means something specific; 'the argument is underdeveloped' means something specific. Say what each actually requires.

2. THE CATEGORIES - sort the comments:
   - MUST ADDRESS: substantive problems with the argument, method or evidence
   - SHOULD ADDRESS: improvements that would raise the quality
   - PREFERENCE: the reader's taste, where a reasonable alternative exists
   - MISREADING: where the comment suggests they misunderstood, which usually means the writing was unclear rather than the reader careless

3. THE UNDERLYING ISSUE - several comments often share one cause. Fixing the cause addresses them all; fixing them individually does not. Identify it if present.

4. THE PRIORITY - what to fix first, given my time and what I have to do.

5. WHERE I DISAGREE - I said my honest reaction. For each point of disagreement: is the feedback wrong, or is my work unclear in a way that produced it? The second is far more common. If the feedback is genuinely wrong, how to say so constructively.

6. THE MISREADING RESPONSE - where a reader misunderstood, the fix is almost always clarification in the text rather than an explanation to the reader. If one reader misread it, others will.

7. THE REVISION PLAN - specific changes, section by section.

8. THE FORMAL RESPONSE - if I have to write one: acknowledging each point, saying what was changed, and where a change was not made, the reasoning, stated respectfully and without defensiveness.

9. THE EMOTIONAL PART - critical feedback on work you invested in is unpleasant, and feeling deflated is a normal response rather than a sign the work is bad. The practical advice: read it once, leave it a day, then read it again as instructions. The second reading is always more useful than the first.

10. WHAT THE FEEDBACK DOES NOT SAY - if it is silent on something I was worried about, that is information too.

Write an abstract.

MY WORK:
"""
[PASTE THE PAPER, OR DESCRIBE: the question, method, findings, and conclusion]
"""

WORD LIMIT: [COUNT]
WHERE IT IS GOING: [journal / conference / dissertation / grant application]
AUDIENCE: [specialists in my field / broader academic / mixed]
STRUCTURED OR UNSTRUCTURED: [if the venue requires headed sections]

Produce:

1. THE ABSTRACT - covering, in proportion:
   - The problem or gap, in one or two sentences
   - The question or aim
   - What you did: method, briefly but specifically. 'A survey was conducted' is not enough; say of whom and how many.
   - What you found: the actual findings with the key numbers, not a promise that findings are presented
   - What it means: the conclusion and its significance

2. THE MOST COMMON FAILURE - abstracts that describe what the paper does rather than what it found. 'This paper examines the relationship between X and Y' tells the reader nothing. State the result. Check my draft or my description against this and say whether it commits the error.

3. THE FINDINGS, STATED - the specific results with figures. An abstract without findings is not an abstract; it is a table of contents. If my material does not give clear findings, say what is needed.

4. THE WORD BUDGET - how the limit should be allocated across the sections. Most abstracts over-spend on background and under-spend on findings.

5. THE STANDALONE TEST - an abstract is read alone, frequently by people who never read the paper, and it is what search results show. Can someone understand the contribution from this alone, with no access to the paper? Say whether mine passes.

6. THE JARGON CHECK - given my stated audience, terms that need defining or replacing. A specialist audience tolerates more; a mixed one does not.

7. THE OVERCLAIM CHECK - whether the abstract promises more than the paper delivers. This is noticed and it damages credibility, and reviewers specifically look for it.

8. THE KEYWORDS - the terms someone searching for this work would use, which may not be the terms you used. This determines whether the work is found at all.

9. THE FIRST SENTENCE - the most-read sentence in the whole paper. It should establish why this matters, not restate the title.

10. THE VARIANTS - a shorter version if I need one for a different venue, and a one-sentence version for describing the work verbally.