Literature Search

This is a strong checkpoint before:

• study appraisal
• evidence synthesis
• claim-strength evaluation
• research-gap analysis

Scope Boundaries

In scope:

• define the research question in searchable terms
• choose the right scholarly sources
• generate a focused candidate set
• note obvious source limitations

Out of scope by default:

• full systematic review protocols
• full-text extraction from every source
• final evidence verdicts
• pretending search results alone settle the claim

Search Workflow

1. Restate the research question in one sentence.
2. Extract the key concepts:
   • population or domain
   • intervention, exposure, or mechanism
   • outcome
   • study type if relevant
3. Choose source scope:
   • PubMed / PMC for biomedical and health topics
   • arXiv for CS, math, physics, and preprint-heavy technical work
   • Semantic Scholar / OpenAlex for broader discovery
4. Build the narrowest useful query first.
5. Expand only if the first pass is too sparse.
6. Return a candidate set with source and trust notes.

Query Design Rules

• prefer explicit outcome terms over vague topic labels
• prefer study-type filters when quality matters
• avoid overbroad queries on the first pass
• separate core concepts from optional modifiers
• use synonym expansion only when recall is too weak

Source Heuristics

• prefer domain-native sources before broad aggregators
• treat PMC as full-text support for relevant biomedical items
• treat arXiv as discovery-rich but preprint-sensitive
• use broader scholarly search for cross-domain or exploratory work

If source availability is uneven, say so instead of hiding the blind spot.

Preprint Handling

When preprint-heavy sources such as arXiv are part of the search scope:

• mark the candidate set as mixed or preprint-heavy when appropriate
• keep preprints visible rather than blending them into peer-reviewed results
• prefer peer-reviewed corroboration when the user is asking for stronger support
• if no reviewed literature is found, say the search is useful for discovery but limited for strong claims

Escalation Conditions

Pause and keep the search narrow when:

• the research question is still vague
• multiple distinct claims are bundled into one search
• the desired scope is too large for one pass
• the source choice itself materially changes trust or coverage

If those conditions persist, recommend scientific-method-selector, intent-clarifier, or a narrower claim before expanding the search.

Output Contract

Always return:

1. research_question
2. search_scope
3. query_logic
4. candidate_sources
5. peer_review_status_notes
6. preprint_load (none, low, mixed, high)
7. coverage_limits
8. recommended_followup
9. next_step

Guardrails

• Do not treat search hits as confirmed evidence.
• Do not hide whether sources are preprints, peer-reviewed, or mixed.
• Do not expand the query so much that relevance collapses.
• Prefer a smaller, more relevant candidate set over paper dumping.
• If the question is too broad, narrow it before searching wider.
• If preprints dominate the candidate set, warn that claim strength remains provisional.

Anti-Patterns

• paper dumping
• one giant query with no structure
• mixing unrelated claims into one search
• broad search with no trust notes
• assuming first-page results reflect the whole evidence base

Example

User request:

Find research on whether time-restricted eating improves insulin sensitivity in adults.

Expected shape of response:

1. research_question: whether time-restricted eating improves insulin sensitivity in adults
2. search_scope: PubMed, PMC, broader scholarly discovery only if needed
3. query_logic: adults + time-restricted eating / time-restricted feeding + insulin sensitivity / insulin resistance + human study filters
4. candidate_sources: focused list of relevant studies and reviews
5. peer_review_status_notes: PubMed-indexed studies likely peer-reviewed; broader sources may include preprints and should be flagged
6. coverage_limits: outcome terms vary; related metabolic endpoints may need separate pass
7. recommended_followup: study-quality-appraiser
8. next_step: appraise the strongest candidate studies before making a claim-strength judgment