Assist with scientific paper writing, LaTeX formatting, abstract drafting, review responses, grant proposals, and academic communication. Use when user asks to write/edit a paper section, draft an abstract, format in LaTeX, respond to reviewer comments, write a grant proposal, or improve academic writing. Triggers on "write abstract", "draft introduction", "LaTeX", "reviewer response", "grant proposal", "improve my writing", "paper draft", "methods section".
name scientific-writing description Assist with scientific paper writing, LaTeX formatting, abstract drafting, review responses, grant proposals, and academic communication. Use when user asks to write/edit a paper section, draft an abstract, format in LaTeX, respond to reviewer comments, write a grant proposal, or improve academic writing. Triggers on "write abstract", "draft introduction", "LaTeX", "reviewer response", "grant proposal", "improve my writing", "paper draft", "methods section". Scientific Writing Academic paper composition, LaTeX formatting, and scholarly communication. Paper Structure Templates IMRaD (standard empirical paper) Title : Concise, informative, includes key variables Abstract : Background (1-2 sentences) → Objective → Methods → Results → Conclusion (150-300 words) Introduction : Broad context → Narrow focus → Gap → Research question/hypothesis Methods : Reproducible detail; subsections by procedure Results : Findings without interpretation; tables/figures referenced Discussion : Summary → Interpretation → Comparison with literature → Limitations → Implications → Future work References : Consistent citation style Review / Survey Paper Introduction with scope and search methodology Taxonomy / organizational framework Systematic coverage of subtopics Synthesis and comparison Open problems and future directions Grant Proposal (NSF/NIH style) Specific Aims (1 page) Significance Innovation Approach (preliminary data, research plan, timeline) Budget justification LaTeX Support Common Templates Article: \documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{hyperref} \usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry} \usepackage{natbib}
\title{Your Title} \author{Author Name \ Institution \ \texttt{[email protected]}} \date{\today}
\begin{document} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Your abstract here. \end{abstract}
\section{Introduction} \section{Methods} \section{Results} \section{Discussion}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat} \bibliography{references} \end{document} Useful LaTeX Packages booktabs — professional tables siunitx — SI units and number formatting algorithm2e — pseudocode tikz/pgfplots — figures and plots cleveref — smart cross-references subcaption — subfigures listings/minted — code listings BibTeX Entry Formats @article{key, author = {Last, First and Last2, First2}, title = {Paper Title}, journal = {Journal Name}, year = {2024}, volume = {1}, pages = {1--10}, doi = {10.xxxx/xxxxx} } Reviewer Response Template We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback. Below we address each comment point by point.
Reviewer Comment 1: [Quote the comment]
Response: [Your response]
Changes made: [Describe specific changes with page/line numbers]
Guidelines for reviewer responses: Be respectful and grateful, even for harsh reviews Address every point, even minor ones Clearly distinguish between changes made and rebuttals Provide evidence (new analyses, references) for disagreements Reference specific manuscript locations for changes Writing Quality Checklist Clarity One idea per paragraph Topic sentence first Active voice preferred (but passive OK for methods) Avoid jargon without definition Short sentences for complex ideas Precision Quantify claims ("increased by 15%" not "significantly increased") Distinguish correlation from causation Use hedging appropriately ("suggests" vs "proves") Report effect sizes, not just p-values Flow Logical paragraph transitions Consistent terminology throughout Forward references for later sections Signposting ("First... Second... Finally...") Common Issues to Fix Dangling modifiers Pronoun ambiguity ("this" without referent) Nominalization overuse (use verbs, not noun forms) Redundancy ("past history", "future plans") Weak openings ("It is well known that...") Citation Styles APA 7th: (Author, Year) — social sciences IEEE: [1] numbered — engineering/CS Vancouver: (1) numbered — biomedical Chicago: footnotes — humanities Nature: superscript numbered — natural sciences When unsure, ask the user for their target journal/conference and adapt accordingly.