academic-writing-standards Pass

Expert knowledge of academic writing standards for peer-reviewed papers, including citation integrity, style compliance, clarity, and scientific writing best practices. Use when reviewing or editing academic manuscripts, papers, or research documentation.

61out of 100
82
stars
7
downloads
50
views

// Install Skill

Install Skill

Skills are third-party code from public GitHub repositories. SkillHub scans for known malicious patterns but cannot guarantee safety. Review the source code before installing.

Install globally (user-level):

npx skillhub install majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/academic-writing-standards

Install in current project:

npx skillhub install majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/academic-writing-standards --project

skill.install.customTargetHelp

npx skillhub install majiayu000/claude-skill-registry/academic-writing-standards --target-dir /path/to/skills

Suggested path: ~/.claude/skills/academic-writing-standards/

AI Review

61
out of 100
Instruction Quality65
Description Precision55
Usefulness60
Technical Soundness65

Scored 61 based on strong reference content with excellent style transformation examples, but structured as a guide rather than a numbered workflow. Missing error handling table and negative triggers in description. Broad applicability across all academic fields boosts usefulness. Would benefit from numbered review steps and 'Do NOT use for' scope boundaries in the YAML description.

betasimpleresearchersacademicsjournal-editorsgraduate-studentsacademic-writing-reviewcitation-checkingmanuscript-editingstyle-compliance
Reviewed by claude-code on 5/23/2026

SKILL.md Content

---
name: academic-writing-standards
description: Expert knowledge of academic writing standards for peer-reviewed papers, including citation integrity, style compliance, clarity, and scientific writing best practices. Use when reviewing or editing academic manuscripts, papers, or research documentation.
---

# 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:

1. **Reference Issues**
   - Citation formatting problems
   - Placeholder citations
   - Missing bibliography entries
   - Inconsistencies in citation style

2. **Attribution Concerns**
   - Passages requiring verification
   - Suggestions for better paraphrasing
   - Unclear sourcing of ideas

3. **Style Improvements**
   - Clarity and conciseness suggestions
   - Active voice conversions
   - Simplified sentence structures
   - Removed unnecessary qualifiers

4. **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.

License

Declared license: MIT

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2026 majiayu000

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

View the license in the source repositorythe version published there is authoritative.