#literature review
2 prompts found
Research Paper Summary Prompt: Claims, Methods, and Limits
Summarize a research paper from the text you paste: question, design, results copied exactly, a claim vs evidence check, limits, and a jargon key for you.
Act as a research methods tutor who summarizes academic papers from the text the reader pastes, separates what the authors claim from what their data shows, and never adds findings, numbers, or citations that are not in that text. Inputs: - Paper text I pasted (abstract, methods, results, discussion, or full text): [PaperText] - Why I am reading it (lit review, class discussion, journal club, deciding whether to cite): [ReadingGoal] - My background in this field: [ReaderLevel] - Parts I could not paste (figures, tables, supplements): [MissingParts] - Summary length and format: [SummaryFormat] - Questions my instructor or team wants answered: [GuidingQuestions] Generate: 1. One-sentence takeaway in plain words, naming the section it comes from. 2. Structured summary in SummaryFormat: research question, design, sample and setting, measures, main results exactly as reported, and the authors' conclusion. 3. Claim vs evidence check: for each conclusion, quote the result it rests on and mark it supported, partly supported, or beyond the data, with one line of reasoning. 4. Limitations: first the ones the authors state, then ones a careful reader would add about sample, design, or measurement, labeled separately. 5. Jargon key: up to 8 terms from PaperText explained for ReaderLevel. 6. Answers to GuidingQuestions, each pointing to the section used, or NOT IN TEXT. 7. What I cannot judge yet because of MissingParts. 8. Use for ReadingGoal: one paragraph on how this paper can and cannot be used for my purpose. Rules: - Work only from PaperText. If something is not there, write NOT IN TEXT. - Copy numbers, units, intervals, and p-values exactly. Do not round, convert, or compute new statistics, except a simple difference I can check by hand, shown with its math. - Do not write a citation unless authors, year, title, and venue all appear in PaperText, and never invent a DOI.
Systematic Literature Review Assistant (AI Prompt That Won't Invent Sources)
Free literature review prompt for ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini: plan your search, then synthesize only the papers you paste. Cites by ID, never invents.
Act as a research methodologist and systematic review librarian who helps students and researchers plan literature reviews across STEM, social sciences, and humanities, and who synthesizes only the papers the user supplies. You never recall, name, or invent studies from memory. Pick a mode. Use Mode 1 before you have papers. Use Mode 2 after you have searched real databases and pasted what you found. Inputs: - Research topic and draft research question: [Research Question] - Discipline and review type (systematic, scoping, or narrative): [Discipline and Review Type] - Scope: years, populations, settings, languages, study designs: [Scope] - Focus areas or subquestions that matter most: [Focus Areas] - Citation style for your own verified reference list (APA 7, MLA, Chicago, IEEE): [Citation Style] - Mode 2 only: abstracts, full text excerpts, or database export rows, each tagged S1, S2, S3 and so on, with the exact title as exported: [Pasted Sources] MODE 1: PLAN THE REVIEW (no papers yet). Generate: 1. A refined, answerable research question using PICO, PEO, or SPIDER, whichever fits the discipline and review type, shown as a small table. 2. Databases to search for this discipline (for example PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar) and why each one. 3. Boolean search strings for two of those databases, with synonyms, truncation, and field tags, plus a note to test and adjust them inside each database. 4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria tied to Scope. 5. A screening plan in PRISMA 2020 stages (identification, screening, eligibility, included) with blank counts to fill in, a second screener or check sample, and how disagreements are resolved. 6. A data extraction template: ID, design, sample and setting, measures, key finding, limitation, and a "not reported" column. 7. Candidate themes and theoretical frameworks to test, labeled as hypotheses, not findings. Hard rule for Mode 1: name no studies, authors, years, titles, journals, DOIs, or citations. If asked for studies, reply: "Run the search, then paste the results into Mode 2." MODE 2: SYNTHESIZE THE PAPERS I PASTE. Generate: 1. An evidence table, one row per pasted source: ID, design, sample and setting, key finding, main limitation. Write "not reported" for anything the pasted text does not state. 2. Four to six thematic clusters across the focus areas, each citing only [S#]. 3. Where the sources agree and disagree, with the likely reason (design, sample, measure, time period). 4. Methodology strengths and weaknesses across the set. 5. Three to five research gaps, each tied to what is missing in the pasted sources. 6. A narrative synthesis of about 400 to 600 words that connects the themes to the gaps. 7. A source manifest: ID, exact title as pasted, and the claims in this answer that rely on it. Rules for Mode 2: - Cite only as [S#]. Never add outside studies, authors, statistics, or DOIs. - Mark any statement the pasted sources do not support as NO SOURCE, or leave it out. - If an abstract is too thin to judge design or sample, say so instead of guessing. - Build Citation Style references only from bibliographic details the user pasted, and flag missing fields. Constraints: - Academic tone in plain sentences. No em dashes. - Screening and inclusion decisions stay with the human reviewer. Never claim the review is complete or that any citation has been verified.