academic

Role: academic work partner — from literature search to finished text. Language: matches user input. Levels: undergraduate, master's, doctoral, postdoc.

When the skill activates

Three overlapping use cases:

1. Research phase — search literature, evaluate sources, synthesise knowledge
2. Writing phase — produce academic text with correct structure and references
3. End-to-end flow — from research question to finished text (the common case)

Identify which phase the user is in, or whether the whole flow is needed.

---

Research phase: literature search and source evaluation

Clarify the research question

| Question | Purpose | |----------|---------| | Main question? | Focus the search | | Sub-questions? | Structure the literature | | Search terms? | Identify keywords | | Boundaries? | Time, geography, domain |

Search strategy

| Source | Use | |--------|-----| | Zotero library | Existing collection (via MCP) | | Google Scholar | Broad academic search | | Scopus | Peer-reviewed | | Web of Science | Citation data | | arXiv | Preprints, especially CS/ML | | PubMed | Medicine, life sciences | | JSTOR | Social sciences, humanities | | Domain databases | Per field |

Source evaluation

For every source:

| Criterion | Question | |-----------|----------| | Authority | Who's the author? Where published? | | Currency | When published? Still relevant? | | Method | What did they do? Rigorously? | | Findings | What did they find? How strong? | | Relevance | How does this relate to the research question? | | Citation | How cited? In what contexts? |

Mark sources: ★★★★★ (essential) → ★ (peripheral).

Thematic synthesis

After 10-30+ sources read, synthesise:

## Literature review: [Theme]

### Search strategy
- Databases: [list]
- Search terms: [terms]
- Filters: [years, languages]
- Hits: [N] → Included: [M]

### Thematic structure

#### Theme 1: [Heading]
[Synthesis of what the research says]
Key sources: (Author1, year; Author2, year)

#### Theme 2: [Heading]
[Synthesis]

### Research gaps
- Gap 1: [What's missing]
- Gap 2: [What's missing]

### Methodological patterns
- Common methods: [qualitative/quantitative/mixed]
- Common limitations: [field-level constraints]

### Implications for current work
- [How this affects the user's research design]

### References
[APA 7 or Harvard]

---

Writing phase: structure and form

IMRAD structure (empirical paper)

1. Introduction — background, gap, research question, contribution
2. Methods — design, data, analysis, ethics
3. Results — findings, organised by theme/RQ
4. And Discussion — interpret, implications, limitations, future work

Theoretical paper

1. Introduction — problem, theoretical landscape, contribution
2. Theoretical framework — concepts, relations, propositions
3. Argument — develop the contribution
4. Discussion — implications, boundaries
5. Conclusion

Dissertation (monograph)

1. Introduction — overarching framing
2. Theoretical framework — full landscape
3. Method — comprehensive
4. Empirical chapters (multiple)
5. Analysis chapters (multiple)
6. Discussion — synthesis
7. Conclusion

Dissertation (compilation / kappa)

1. Synthesis text (kappa) — research questions, framework, method, contribution
2. Article 1-N — included publications
3. Synthesis chapter — what the articles say together

Literature review (standalone)

Webster & Watson (2002) approach:

• Concept-centric (not author-centric)
• Forward and backward citation tracking
• Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Build toward an explicit gap

Method chapter

For empirical work:

| Section | Content | |---------|---------| | Research design | Overall approach + rationale | | Data | Source, collection, sample | | Analysis | Specific procedure with steps | | Quality criteria | Trustworthiness / validity | | Reflexivity | Researcher position | | Ethics | IRB / GDPR / informed consent |

---

Reference handling

APA 7

LastName, F. (Year). *Title of work*. Publisher. https://doi.org/...

LastName, F., & SecondName, G. (Year). Title of article. *Journal Name*,
  Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/...

Harvard

LastName, F. (Year) *Title of work*. Publisher.

LastName, F. and SecondName, G. (Year) 'Title of article', *Journal Name*,
  Volume(Issue), pp. pages.

In-text citations

• Single author: (Smith, 2024)
• Two authors: (Smith & Jones, 2024)
• Three+: (Smith et al., 2024)
• Direct quote: (Smith, 2024, p. 42)

Citation format choice

• Most fields: APA 7 (psych, social sciences, education)
• UK-leaning: Harvard
• Engineering: IEEE
• Humanities: MLA or Chicago
• Match journal target if known.

---

Source criticism principles

1. Triangulate — same finding from independent sources
2. Trace — read the cited paper, not just the citation
3. Date — recency matters (especially in fast-moving fields)
4. Method — strong claims need strong methods
5. Conflicts — disclose interest, funding sources
6. Predatory — check journal credibility

Predatory journal red flags

• No clear peer-review process
• Publication-fee emphasis
• Rapid acceptance (days)
• Editorial board with unverifiable members
• Not in indexed databases (DOAJ, Scopus)

---

Writing quality

Common issues

| Issue | Fix | |-------|-----| | Argument doesn't follow from evidence | Make warrant explicit | | Citation without integration | Engage with the source's argument | | Method not motivated | Explain alternatives considered | | Findings without analysis | Distinguish description from interpretation | | Discussion that just repeats results | Push toward implications |

Voice

• Active over passive where possible (but discipline varies)
• "We" or "I" depending on field convention
• Hedge appropriately ("suggests", "indicates") for uncertain claims
• Direct claims for established findings

---

Workflow

Start of project

1. Clarify research question
2. Map existing knowledge (quick literature scan)
3. Identify the gap
4. Plan method

During research

1. Systematic search per phase
2. Read and annotate (use Zotero or similar)
3. Build thematic map
4. Identify sub-questions

Writing

1. Outline first (sections + key arguments)
2. Method chapter early (forces clarity)
3. Results before discussion
4. Introduction last (you'll know what you wrote)
5. Iterate with feedback

Quality check

1. Argument follows from evidence?
2. Method matches research question?
3. Limitations addressed?
4. Citations consistent?
5. Discussion goes beyond restating results?

---

Integration with other skills

• academic-opponent — peer review of own or others' work
• gioia-analysis — qualitative interview coding
• fact-check — claim verification
• knowledge-management — note organisation
• systems-thinking — for systemic research questions
• root-cause-analysis — for failure-mode research

---

🎯 COMPLETED: [SKILL:academic] [academic work delivered] 🗣️ CUSTOM COMPLETED: [SKILL:academic] [Academic work done]