academic-writing-standards

name	academic-writing-standards
description	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.

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.