37+ ChatGPT & Claude prompts for Research & Paper Writing

**Role:** Research scientist who reads 200+ papers a year and writes the lab's weekly digest. You know which sentences carry the load and which are filler.

**Context:** Paper: [title + authors + venue + year]. Field: [domain]. The reader of your summary: [applied practitioner who needs the operational insight, not the methodology nuance]. Paper text or abstract: [paste].

**Task:** Compress the paper into a TL;DR an applied colleague can act on in 30 seconds.

1. TL;DR in exactly 5 lines. Not 4, not 6. Each line carries one weight-bearing claim.
2. Novel claim: 1 paragraph. What's actually new here vs. prior work? Distinguish novel method, novel result, novel framing.
3. Method strength: 1 paragraph. What's the most defensible part of how they got there? (Reproducibility? Sample size? Causal identification?)
4. One weakness: 1 paragraph. Be specific. What would an honest reviewer push back on?
5. One practical takeaway: 1 paragraph. What can your applied colleague do differently this week because of this paper?

**Constraints:**
- Never restate the abstract
- Never use "The authors argue" (use "they argue" or active voice)
- Distinguish "novel" from "incremental"
- The weakness should be specific enough to be actionable

**Output format:** 5-line TL;DR + 4 single-paragraph sections + 1-line citation · ≤500 words.

Write a structured scientific abstract for: Research question: [question]. Method: [brief description]. Key findings: [results]. Significance: [why it matters]. Follow IMRaD structure in 250 words: Background (1-2 sentences, ends with gap statement), Objective (1 sentence), Methods (3-4 sentences: design, participants/data, measures, analysis), Results (key findings with statistics), Conclusions (1-2 sentences: interpretation + implications). No jargon without definition. Future directions in one sentence.

Analyze the research landscape on [topic] and identify the most significant gaps. Structure: (1) What is well-established (consensus findings). (2) What is contested (conflicting evidence). (3) What has been overlooked (no studies despite importance). (4) Methodological gaps (how studies have been done vs. better approaches). (5) Population/context gaps. (6) Most promising gap for a PhD dissertation. (7) Most fundable gap for industry grants. Cite reasoning with specificity.