Using LLMs to critique your research

### Writing guidelines * Use simple, active sentences * Avoid jargon unless essential * Choose concrete examples over abstract descriptions * Brevity: write “the author assumes X” not “it appears that there may be an implicit presupposition regarding X” * Think Paul Graham, not academic journal

### Main critiques (3-5 total, 300-500 words each) For each critique: **Title:** [Give the critique a short, memorable title] **One-sentence summary:** [State the problem in the simplest possible terms] **The issue:** Explain precisely what’s wrong and where it appears in the paper. Use specific quotes or page references. Use bullet points for clarity. **Why it matters:** Show how this weakness undermines the paper’s central argument. Be concrete about the consequences. Use bullet points for clarity. **What fixing it requires:** Briefly outline what the author would need to do to address this critique adequately. Use bullet points for clarity.

## Fact-check request for academic paper Please conduct a comprehensive fact-check of the attached academic paper. Your task is to verify all factual claims systematically. ### Scope of review Identify and verify: * Empirical claims (statistics, dates, figures, percentages) * Citations and references (check if sources actually say what's claimed) * Historical facts and chronologies * Scientific or technical assertions * Institutional facts (names, roles, affiliations) * Quotations and paraphrases * Methodological claims about cited studies ### For each claim requiring verification 1. **Quote the specific claim** from the paper with page/section reference 2. **Assess verifiability** - can this claim be checked against authoritative sources? 3. **Verify the claim** using: * Primary sources where possible * Multiple independent authoritative sources for important claims * Academic databases and peer-reviewed literature * Official statistics and institutional records 4. **Report your finding** as one of: * Verified (with sources) * Incorrect (explain the error and provide correct information) * Partially correct (specify what's right and wrong) * Unverifiable (explain why) * Misleading (technically correct but presented in a way that could mislead) ### Output format Organise your findings by: * Critical errors that affect the paper's main arguments * Minor factual errors * Unverifiable but plausible claims * Claims that are technically correct but potentially misleading ### Special attention areas * Check whether cited papers actually support the claims made about them * Verify that quotations are accurate and not taken out of context * Confirm statistical claims match original sources * Flag any claims that seem implausible even if you cannot definitively disprove them ### Writing guidelines * Use simple, active sentences * Avoid philosophical jargon unless essential (and define it when used) * Choose concrete examples over abstract descriptions * Brevity: write “the author assumes X” not “it appears that there may be an implicit presupposition regarding X” * Think Paul Graham, not academic journal

You are critiquing a philosophy paper. Your goal is to identify the most valuable objections that would genuinely improve the work. ## Output structure ### Executive summary (100-150 words) Start with a numbered list summary of the 3-5 most important critiques. Write this like you're explaining the key problems to a colleague over coffee—direct, clear, no jargon. Each critique gets a short 1-sentence title in bold, then a 1-2 sentence elaboration. ### Main critiques (3-5 total, 300-500 words each) For each critique: **Title:** [Give the critique a short, memorable title] **One-sentence summary:** [State the problem in the simplest possible terms] **The issue:** Explain precisely what's wrong and where it appears in the paper. Use specific quotes or page references. Use bullet points for clarity. **Why it matters:** Show how this weakness undermines the paper's central argument. Be concrete about the consequences. Use bullet points for clarity. **What fixing it requires:** Briefly outline what the author would need to do to address this critique adequately. Use bullet points for clarity. ## Selection criteria Focus on critiques that are: * Central to the paper's thesis (not peripheral nitpicks) * Genuinely difficult to resolve (not easily patched) * Clear and specific (not vague methodological complaints) Common critique types to consider: * Invalid inferences or logical gaps * False or questionable empirical premises * Failure to address obvious objections * Internal contradictions * Concepts used ambiguously at crucial points * Overgeneralisation from limited cases ## Writing guidelines * Use simple, active sentences * Avoid philosophical jargon unless essential (and define it when used) * Choose concrete examples over abstract descriptions * Brevity: write "the author assumes X" not "it appears that there may be an implicit presupposition regarding X" * Think Paul Graham, not academic journal [PAPER TEXT]