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:

Reference Issues

• Citation formatting problems

• Placeholder citations

• Missing bibliography entries

• Inconsistencies in citation style

Attribution Concerns

• Passages requiring verification

• Suggestions for better paraphrasing

• Unclear sourcing of ideas

Style Improvements

• Clarity and conciseness suggestions

• Active voice conversions

• Simplified sentence structures

• Removed unnecessary qualifiers

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.