CARefully prompt your AI

Evaluate these academic sources for my research on [specific research topic/question]. For each source, assess:

SOURCES TO EVALUATE:
[List your sources with titles, authors, publication details]

For each source, please analyze:

1. **Credibility & Authority**
   - Author credentials and institutional affiliation
   - Publication venue quality (journal impact, publisher reputation)
   - Peer review status and publication standards

2. **Relevance & Scope**
   - Direct relevance to my research question: [state your research question]
   - Geographic/temporal scope alignment with my needs
   - Depth of coverage on key aspects

3. **Bias & Limitations**
   - Potential author bias or conflicts of interest
   - Methodological limitations or scope restrictions
   - Cultural, ideological, or disciplinary perspectives

4. **Currency & Context**
   - Publication date relevance for my topic
   - Whether findings have been superseded or challenged
   - Position within current scholarly conversation

Provide a summary ranking of sources from most to least valuable for my specific research needs.

Analyze these sources for potential bias, conflicts of interest, and limitations that might affect their reliability for academic research:

SOURCES TO ANALYZE:
[Paste source information: title, author, publication, key claims]

RESEARCH CONTEXT: [Brief description of your research topic and perspective]

Please examine each source for:

1. **Author/Institutional Bias**
   - Financial interests or funding sources
   - Professional affiliations that might influence perspective
   - Previous publications showing consistent viewpoint patterns

2. **Methodological Bias**
   - Sample selection or data collection limitations
   - Statistical or analytical approach concerns
   - Potential cherry-picking of evidence

3. **Cultural/Ideological Perspectives**
   - Western/non-Western viewpoint dominance
   - Political or ideological frameworks underlying arguments
   - Disciplinary assumptions that might limit scope

4. **Publication Context**
   - Journal editorial stance or target audience
   - Timing of publication relative to relevant events
   - Peer review process and standards

Flag any sources that require particular caution and suggest how I might address these limitations in my research.

Based on the sources I've uploaded to this notebook, analyze the content to identify:

**RESEARCH FOCUS:** [State your specific research question or topic]

**ANALYSIS REQUEST:**

1. **Major Themes & Patterns**
   - Identify 3-5 recurring themes across the uploaded sources
   - Note which sources support each theme most strongly
   - Highlight any unique perspectives that only appear in one source

2. **Connections & Relationships**
   - Map how different sources relate to each other
   - Identify areas of agreement and disagreement between sources
   - Note any potential causal relationships or sequential developments

3. **Conflicting Viewpoints**
   - Point out any direct contradictions between sources
   - Identify subtle differences in approach or interpretation
   - Suggest why these differences might exist (methodological, temporal, cultural)

4. **Research Gaps & Opportunities**
   - What aspects of my research question are well-covered by these sources?
   - What areas seem under-researched or missing from this collection?
   - What types of additional sources might fill these gaps?

5. **Synthesis Framework**
   - Suggest a logical organization structure for these themes
   - Propose how I might integrate conflicting viewpoints
   - Recommend which sources would be most effective for different arguments

Please cite specific sources when making claims and indicate confidence levels for your analysis.

Create a comprehensive research strategy for investigating: [Your research question/topic]

**RESEARCH CONTEXT:**
- Academic level: [undergraduate/graduate/doctoral]
- Discipline: [your field]
- Geographic focus: [if applicable]
- Time period: [if applicable]
- Current knowledge level: [brief description of what you already know]

**STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT:**

1. **Search Terms & Keywords**
   - Primary keywords and synonyms
   - Alternative terminology used in different disciplines
   - Boolean search combinations for maximum coverage
   - Terms to exclude to avoid irrelevant results

2. **Database & Resource Prioritization**
   - Most relevant academic databases for this topic
   - Specialized archives or collections to explore
   - Government or institutional sources
   - International vs. local/regional resources

3. **Source Type Strategy**
   - Peer-reviewed articles vs. books vs. reports
   - Primary vs. secondary sources needed
   - Historical vs. contemporary sources
   - Theoretical vs. empirical studies

4. **Search Sequence Planning**
   - Order of databases to search (most to least specialized)
   - Iterative search refinement strategy
   - Citation chaining and reference mining approach
   - When to broaden vs. narrow search parameters

5. **Quality Control Framework**
   - Criteria for source inclusion/exclusion
   - Method for tracking and organizing findings
   - System for identifying research saturation
   - Bias detection and mitigation strategies

6. **Timeline & Milestones**
   - Realistic research phase schedule
   - Key decision points for strategy adjustment
   - Progress checkpoints and review stages

Provide specific, actionable steps I can implement immediately.

Based on the research findings I've collected, help me develop 2-3 alternative organizational structures for my academic work:

**RESEARCH OVERVIEW:**
- Main research question: [your research question]
- Document type: [thesis chapter/journal article/conference paper/etc.]
- Target length: [word count or page estimate]
- Key findings summary: [brief overview of main discoveries]

**COLLECTED EVIDENCE:**
[Summarize your main findings, themes, sources, and evidence]

**STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT:**

1. **Structure Option A: [suggest structure type]**
   - Main sections and logical flow
   - How each section builds toward the conclusion
   - Where strongest evidence should be positioned
   - How to handle conflicting viewpoints

2. **Structure Option B: [suggest alternative structure type]**
   - Alternative organizational logic
   - Different emphasis or approach
   - Comparative advantages over Option A
   - Potential challenges and mitigation strategies

3. **Structure Option C: [suggest third structure type if warranted]**
   - Additional organizational possibility
   - Unique benefits for this specific research
   - Best use cases for this approach

**FOR EACH STRUCTURE:**
- Detailed outline with main headings and subheadings
- Logical flow and transition strategies between sections
- Evidence placement and integration approach
- Introduction and conclusion frameworks
- Potential weaknesses and how to address them

**DECISION FRAMEWORK:**
Provide criteria for choosing between these structures based on my research goals, evidence strength, and target audience needs.

Analyze my current research collection to identify gaps, weaknesses, and opportunities for strengthening my academic work:

**RESEARCH CONTEXT:**
- Research question/topic: [your specific research focus]
- Current scope: [geographic, temporal, disciplinary boundaries]
- Target contribution: [what you hope to add to the field]

**CURRENT RESEARCH SUMMARY:**
[Provide an overview of sources collected, main themes identified, key findings, and methodological approaches covered]

**GAP ANALYSIS REQUEST:**

1. **Content Gaps**
   - What key aspects of my research question remain under-explored?
   - Which important perspectives or voices are missing?
   - What time periods, geographic regions, or populations are underrepresented?
   - Are there important sub-topics or related issues I haven't considered?

2. **Methodological Gaps**
   - What research methods or analytical approaches are missing?
   - Are both quantitative and qualitative perspectives represented?
   - What types of evidence (empirical, theoretical, historical) need strengthening?
   - Are there interdisciplinary approaches I should consider?

3. **Source Type Gaps**
   - Primary vs. secondary source balance assessment
   - Recent vs. historical source coverage
   - Academic vs. practitioner perspectives
   - Diversity of publication types and venues

4. **Theoretical & Conceptual Gaps**
   - What theoretical frameworks could strengthen my analysis?
   - Are there competing theories I should address?
   - What conceptual tools might enhance my argument?
   - How well do I engage with current scholarly debates?

5. **Critical Perspective Gaps**
   - What counterarguments am I not addressing adequately?
   - Where might my research exhibit bias or limited perspective?
   - What alternative interpretations should I consider?
   - How can I strengthen the critical rigor of my work?

**PRIORITIZATION & NEXT STEPS:**
- Rank identified gaps by importance and feasibility
- Suggest specific types of sources to seek
- Recommend research strategies for addressing priority gaps
- Identify which gaps are acceptable limitations vs. critical weaknesses

I need to improve the clarity of this academic text while maintaining its scholarly integrity. Please identify the 2-3 most complex or unclear parts and suggest clearer alternatives. Only rephrase what needs clarification:

[Your academic text here]

Guidelines for your response:
- Preserve all technical terminology
- Maintain the same level of academic rigor
- Focus only on improving clarity without changing meaning
- Explain briefly why each suggestion improves clarity

Rephrase this academic text for improved clarity while preserving all technical concepts and maintaining academic standards. The text is intended for [specify audience, e.g., "undergraduate students," "peer reviewers," etc.].

[Your academic text here]

Please provide:
1. A fully rephrased version with improved clarity
2. A brief explanation of what you changed and why
3. Note any technical terms you preserved exactly as written

Make this academic text approximately [X]% more concise while preserving all essential content, technical terminology, and scholarly tone:

[Your academic text here]

Please:
1. Maintain the same level of technical precision
2. Preserve all key arguments and evidence
3. Keep all citations and references intact
4. Focus on eliminating wordiness, redundancy, and unnecessary qualifiers
5. Provide the word count of both the original and revised versions

Indicate any significant content you removed and why it was deemed non-essential.

Analyze this academic text and improve its flow by identifying places where transitions between ideas or paragraphs are abrupt or unclear:

[Your academic text here]

Please:
1. Identify specific locations where logical connections could be strengthened
2. Suggest precise transition words, phrases, or sentences for each location
3. Explain the logical relationship each suggestion is meant to signal (contrast, causation, addition, etc.)
4. Maintain the scholarly tone and technical precision throughout
5. Do not modify the core content or arguments

Format your response with clearly labeled sections for each transition point.

Adjust the tone and complexity level of this academic text for a [specific audience, e.g., "undergraduate students," "interdisciplinary conference," "grant review committee"]:

[Your academic text here]

Please provide:
1. A revised version with tone and complexity appropriate for the specified audience
2. Maintain all essential academic content and technical concepts
3. Explain the key adjustments you made and why they're appropriate for this audience

Tone guidelines:
- Formality level: [specify, e.g., "highly formal," "accessible but scholarly"]
- Technical vocabulary: [specify, e.g., "define technical terms," "maintain specialized vocabulary"]
- Sentence complexity: [specify preference]

Simplify the sentence structure in this academic text while preserving all technical content and meaning:

[Your academic text here]

Please:
1. Break down complex sentences with multiple clauses into shorter, clearer sentences
2. Maintain all technical terminology and specialized vocabulary
3. Preserve all citations and scholarly references
4. Ensure the logical flow and relationships between ideas remain intact
5. For each significant simplification, briefly explain your approach

Focus particularly on sentences with:
- Multiple dependent clauses
- Extended parenthetical phrases
- Excessive use of semicolons
- Nested or stacked modifiers

Identify and eliminate redundant elements in this academic text while preserving all essential content:

[Your academic text here]

Please identify and address:
1. Repeated concepts or ideas expressed in different ways
2. Unnecessary word repetition that doesn't serve a rhetorical purpose
3. Redundant phrases (e.g., "absolutely essential," "basic fundamentals")
4. Overlapping or duplicative examples
5. Unnecessarily restating information that's already been established

Provide:
- A revised version with redundancies eliminated
- A brief explanation of what you removed and why
- Confirmation that all essential academic content and technical terminology remains intact

Proofread this academic text for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors only. Do not alter content, meaning, or writing style:

[Your academic text here]

Please:
1. Correct all mechanical errors (spelling, grammar, punctuation)
2. Pay special attention to subject-verb agreement, verb tense consistency, and proper article usage
3. Preserve all technical terminology exactly as written
4. Maintain all citations in their original format
5. Format your response with:
   a) The corrected version
   b) A list of corrections made with brief explanations

For discipline-specific conventions, I am writing in [specify field, e.g., "linguistics," "computer science"] following [specify style, e.g., "APA," "Chicago"].

Generate 3-4 alternative academic topic sentences for a paragraph that will discuss [specific aspect/concept]. The paragraph will follow this preceding content:

[Previous paragraph or context]

The new paragraph should:
1. Clearly signal the shift to [the specific aspect/concept]
2. Connect logically to the preceding content
3. Use appropriate scholarly language for [your field/discipline]
4. Set the stage for an in-depth discussion of [specific aspect/concept]

Provide varied sentence structures and transition strategies with a brief explanation of how each option works.

Generate 3-4 alternative academic transition sentences to connect these two paragraphs while maintaining scholarly tone:

First paragraph:
[Content of first paragraph]

Second paragraph:
[Content of second paragraph]

The logical relationship between these paragraphs is [describe relationship, e.g., "contrast," "elaboration," "cause-effect," "sequence," etc.].

For each alternative transition:
1. Create a sentence that clearly connects the key ideas from both paragraphs
2. Use academic language appropriate for [your field or discipline]
3. Briefly explain how the transition works logically
4. Vary the transition strategies (e.g., use of conjunctive adverbs, reference to preceding ideas, etc.)

Generate 3 alternative academic concluding sentences for this paragraph that effectively synthesize its main point:

[Your paragraph text]

Please provide concluding sentences that:
1. Reinforce the paragraph's key point without simply restating the topic sentence
2. Provide appropriate scholarly closure to the idea
3. Use academic language appropriate for [your field or audience level]
4. Optional: hint at implications or connection to the next topic if appropriate

For each option, briefly note what conclusion strategy it employs (e.g., synthesis, implication, reinforcement, future direction).

Transform these academic notes/bullet points into a well-structured paragraph suitable for [document type] in [field or discipline]:

[Your bullet points or notes]

Please:
1. Convert each point into complete academic sentences
2. Arrange them in a logical sequence with appropriate transitions
3. Create a cohesive paragraph with a clear topic sentence and concluding thought
4. Maintain appropriate scholarly tone and terminology
5. Expand on the notes where needed for clarity, but preserve the original meaning

The target audience is [specify audience, e.g., "undergraduate students," "peer researchers"] and the paragraph should be approximately [X] sentences long.

Analyze these samples of my academic writing, then rewrite the target text to match my style while preserving all content:

MY WRITING SAMPLES:
[Paste 2-3 paragraphs of your own academic writing here]

TEXT TO REWRITE IN MY STYLE:
[Paste text you want rewritten here]

Please:
1. First identify the key characteristics of my writing style (sentence structure, vocabulary level, paragraph organization, tone, etc.)
2. Rewrite the target text to match these characteristics while preserving all content and meaning
3. Maintain all technical terms, citations, and scholarly precision
4. Explain which specific stylistic changes you made

The goal is for the rewritten text to sound authentically like my own writing.

Suggest 2-3 alternative phrasings for this academic text while preserving these exact key terms and concepts:

KEY TERMS TO PRESERVE EXACTLY:
[List the specific technical terms, phrases, or concepts that must remain unchanged]

TEXT TO REPHRASE:
[Your academic text]

Please provide:
1. Alternative phrasings that vary the sentence structure and non-technical language
2. Brief notes on how each alternative shifts the emphasis or tone
3. Confirmation that all key technical terms are preserved exactly as listed

The alternatives should maintain academic rigor and be suitable for [audience and context].

Identify and eliminate any generic AI-like phrases or patterns in this academic text, replacing them with more authentic scholarly language:

[Your academic text here]

Please:
1. Identify common AI patterns such as:
  - Formulaic introductions or conclusions
  - Overuse of phrases like "it is important to note," "it is worth mentioning," etc.
  - Repetitive transition phrases
  - Overly balanced sentence structures
  - Predictable paragraph organization

2. Replace identified patterns with more authentic academic alternatives

3. Explain what you changed and why it improves authenticity

The revised text should maintain all academic content while reading more like natural human scholarly writing.

Review the following citations and references for formatting consistency and completeness according to [citation style] guidelines:

IN-TEXT CITATIONS:
[Paste your in-text citations here, including surrounding context]

REFERENCE LIST:
[Paste your reference list entries here]

Please:
1. Check for consistency in citation format throughout the text
2. Verify that all in-text citations have corresponding entries in the reference list
3. Identify any reference list entries that are not cited in the text
4. Check each reference entry for proper formatting according to [citation style] standards
5. Highlight any missing information in reference entries (author, year, title, etc.)
6. Flag any potential errors in DOIs, URLs, or access dates

Provide a detailed report of issues found and specific corrections needed for each problem identified. Do not make judgments about the content or quality of sources, only the technical aspects of citation.

Help me verify that my citations accurately represent the content of my sources. Review these excerpts where I cite sources and check whether my representation seems reasonable:

CITATION CONTEXT 1:
[Paste paragraph with citation, including the claim you're attributing to the source]
Source info: [Author, title, year, page number if applicable]

CITATION CONTEXT 2:
[Paste paragraph with citation, including the claim you're attributing to the source]
Source info: [Author, title, year, page number if applicable]

[Add more citation contexts as needed]

For each citation, please:
1. Analyze my representation of the source's content or findings
2. Flag any potential misrepresentations, overstatements, or problematic framing
3. Suggest more accurate or precise ways to represent this source if needed
4. Note if additional context from the original source might be necessary
5. Check if I've appropriately indicated when I'm directly quoting vs. paraphrasing

Do not assume you know the exact content of the sources. Instead, flag places where my representation seems potentially problematic based on general knowledge of the field, logical inconsistencies, or citation best practices.

Analyze this academic text for potential academic integrity issues, focusing on areas that might need additional citation or better attribution:

[Your academic text here]

Please identify:

1. **Uncited factual claims or statistics**
   - Flag specific sentences containing facts, data, or statistics that should likely be cited
   - Explain why these statements typically require attribution in academic writing

2. **Potentially under-paraphrased content**
   - Highlight passages that might too closely resemble source material if derived from sources
   - Suggest how to more thoroughly rephrase while maintaining meaning

3. **Unclear attribution boundaries**
   - Identify places where it's unclear whether you're presenting your own ideas or someone else's
   - Suggest clearer language to distinguish between source material and your analysis

4. **Citation needed for specific concepts**
   - Flag specialized terminology, theoretical frameworks, or methodological approaches that typically require attribution
   - Explain the importance of acknowledging intellectual origins of these concepts

For each issue identified, provide specific suggestions for improvement following [citation style] standards. Focus on helping me maintain academic integrity, not on content quality or style.

Analyze the logical consistency and argumentative structure of this academic text:

[Your academic text here]

Please identify:

1. **Internal contradictions or inconsistencies**
   - Flag instances where I make claims that seem to contradict each other
   - Identify shifts in how I define or use key terms throughout the text
   - Note any tension between my theoretical framework and specific arguments

2. **Gaps in logical connections**
   - Highlight places where my conclusions don't clearly follow from the evidence presented
   - Identify missing steps in reasoning or logical leaps
   - Point out where additional explanation or evidence would strengthen connections

3. **Unsubstantiated assumptions**
   - Identify implicit assumptions that I haven't acknowledged or justified
   - Note places where I present contested ideas as if they were established facts
   - Suggest how to make assumptions explicit and defend them appropriately

4. **Argument structure improvements**
   - Analyze how effectively my overall argument builds from point to point
   - Identify where reorganization might strengthen logical flow
   - Suggest transitions or signposting that would clarify argumentative progression

For each issue identified, please suggest specific improvements that would strengthen logical coherence while maintaining my original meaning and purpose. Focus only on the logical structure, not on style, grammar, or factual accuracy.

Identify and assess factual claims in this academic text that may need verification:

[Your academic text here]

Please:

1. **Extract specific factual claims**
   - Identify statements presented as factual (statistics, dates, events, definitions, etc.)
   - Highlight claims that seem most critical to my argument
   - Note claims that appear precise but lack citation

2. **Assess plausibility**
   - Flag any claims that seem potentially inaccurate based on general knowledge
   - Identify statistics or numbers that seem implausible or highly precise without clear sourcing
   - Note any claims that contradict other statements in the text

3. **Suggest verification strategies**
   - For each potentially problematic claim, suggest specific sources or databases where I could verify this information
   - Recommend alternative phrasings if a claim needs to be qualified or made less absolute
   - Suggest where additional citation might be needed

4. **Prioritize verification needs**
   - Rank which claims most urgently need verification based on their importance to my argument
   - Identify which types of claims carry the most risk if inaccurate

Focus only on verifiable factual claims, not on interpretations, arguments, or theoretical positions. Do not attempt to verify the claims yourself, but help me identify what needs verification and how I might go about it.

Analyze this academic text for potential biases, unexamined assumptions, or limitations in perspective:

[Your academic text here]

RESEARCH CONTEXT: [Briefly describe your discipline, methodology, and research goals]

Please examine the text for:

1. **Language and Framing Bias**
   - Identify loaded terminology or framing that reveals unstated value judgments
   - Flag instances of potentially problematic descriptions of groups or cultures
   - Note places where more neutral language could be employed

2. **Methodological or Theoretical Bias**
   - Identify implicit theoretical assumptions that shape my analysis
   - Note if I've privileged certain methodological approaches without acknowledgment
   - Suggest where alternative frameworks might yield different interpretations

3. **Cultural or Geographical Bias**
   - Highlight Western-centric (or other culturally specific) perspectives presented as universal
   - Identify where cultural context may be missing or oversimplified
   - Note any overgeneralizations about cultures, regions, or groups

4. **Source Selection Bias**
   - Examine whether my sources represent diverse perspectives and backgrounds
   - Note if I've drawn primarily from one theoretical tradition, time period, or demographic
   - Identify important alternative viewpoints that might be underrepresented

5. **Temporal Bias**
   - Flag presentism (judging historical contexts by contemporary standards)
   - Identify where I might be overlooking historical context
   - Note assumptions about progress or development that may reflect particular worldviews

For each issue identified, please:
- Explain why it might be considered a form of bias
- Suggest how I might acknowledge or address it
- Offer more balanced alternative phrasings or approaches where appropriate

The goal is not to eliminate all perspective, but to help me be more aware of my assumptions and limitations so I can address them explicitly in my work.

Create a structured framework of questions to help me critically evaluate [content type] on [specific topic].

I need a systematic set of questions organized into categories that will prompt my critical thinking. The questions should:

1. Be open-ended rather than yes/no
2. Require me to make judgments and assessments based on evidence
3. Help me consider multiple perspectives and potential biases
4. Challenge assumptions in the material and in my own thinking
5. Be applicable to academic work in [your field]

Specific areas to include in the framework:
- Questions about the quality and credibility of evidence/sources
- Questions about logical reasoning and argument structure
- Questions about contextual factors (historical, cultural, etc.)
- Questions about theoretical frameworks and underlying assumptions
- Questions about limitations, counterarguments, and alternative explanations
- Questions about implications and significance

The goal is to create a reusable framework I can apply to critically analyze similar works in this field. Do not perform any analysis yourself - only provide the questions that will guide my own evaluation.

Create a comparative analysis matrix structure to help me evaluate and compare [number] different [theories/sources/approaches/methodologies] related to [specific topic].

I need a structured matrix format with:

1. **Evaluation dimensions:** Suggest [number] key dimensions or criteria for comparison that are most relevant to [your field/topic]

2. **Matrix structure:**
   - Clear rows and columns with appropriate labels
   - Space for entering my own analysis and evaluation
   - A logical organization that facilitates identifying patterns, similarities, and differences

3. **Guiding questions:**
   - For each dimension/criterion, provide 2-3 analytical questions that will help me assess each [theory/source/approach] systematically
   - These questions should prompt critical thinking rather than simple description

4. **Evaluation scales:**
   - Suggest appropriate qualitative or quantitative scales for assessing each dimension
   - Include guidance on how to apply these scales consistently

The goal is to create a reusable framework I can populate with my own analysis. Do NOT fill in any content or make any evaluations - I need only the empty matrix structure with clear categories, questions, and rating scales.

Create a structured set of reflective questions to help me critically evaluate my use of AI in my academic [writing/research] process:

PROJECT CONTEXT:
[Briefly describe your academic project, discipline, and how you've used AI tools]

Generate reflective questions in these categories:

1. **Authorship and Attribution**
   - Questions that help me reflect on my role as the author
   - Questions about appropriate attribution and transparency
   - Questions about maintaining my unique scholarly voice

2. **Critical Oversight and Judgment**
   - Questions about how I've verified AI-generated content
   - Questions about my decision-making process when accepting or rejecting AI suggestions
   - Questions about potential over-reliance on AI tools

3. **Quality and Integrity**
   - Questions about how AI has influenced the academic quality of my work
   - Questions about potential limitations introduced by AI tools
   - Questions about scholarly integrity in AI-assisted work

4. **Process and Workflow**
   - Questions about how AI has changed my research/writing process
   - Questions about which tasks I delegated vs. performed myself
   - Questions about workflow efficiency and effectiveness

5. **Ethical Considerations**
   - Questions about disciplinary norms regarding AI use
   - Questions about potential biases introduced through AI tools
   - Questions about responsible AI use in academia

Format these as open-ended questions that prompt meaningful reflection rather than yes/no answers. The goal is to help me thoughtfully document and evaluate my AI integration rather than having you answer these questions for me.

Create a comprehensive methodological assessment guide that I can use to evaluate research approaches in [specific field or discipline].

My research focuses on: [briefly describe your research focus]
Methodological approach(es) to evaluate: [list methods, e.g., "qualitative interviews," "experimental design," "textual analysis"]

Develop a structured assessment framework with:

1. **Research Question Alignment**
   - Questions about how well the methodology addresses the core research questions
   - Criteria for evaluating methodological fit with research objectives
   - Considerations for alternative approaches that might better address the questions

2. **Research Design Evaluation**
   - Questions about sampling strategies and representativeness
   - Considerations regarding data collection procedures
   - Assessment criteria for research timeline and feasibility
   - Questions about controls for confounding variables (if applicable)

3. **Analytical Approach Assessment**
   - Questions about appropriateness of analytical techniques
   - Criteria for evaluating analytical rigor
   - Considerations about quantitative and/or qualitative analysis methods
   - Questions about software tools or frameworks used (if applicable)

4. **Validity and Reliability Considerations**
   - Questions about internal and external validity
   - Assessment criteria for reliability of measures/observations
   - Considerations regarding generalizability of findings
   - Questions about replicability of the research

5. **Ethical and Practical Considerations**
   - Questions about ethical implications of methodological choices
   - Assessment of research participant protections (if applicable)
   - Practical limitations and resource constraints
   - Questions about transparency and reflexivity

For each section, provide:
- 3-5 specific evaluation questions that prompt critical thinking
- Suggestions for assessment criteria or metrics
- Common methodological pitfalls to consider

This framework should help me systematically assess methodological choices without requiring you to do the actual evaluation.

Create a comprehensive framework to help me identify and assess ethical dimensions of my research or writing project.

PROJECT CONTEXT:
[Briefly describe your project, discipline, and any specific ethical concerns]

Generate a structured assessment framework with these components:

1. **Stakeholder Identification**
   - Questions to help me identify all parties potentially affected by my research
   - Considerations about power dynamics between stakeholders
   - Questions about whose voices are centered or marginalized

2. **Research Design Ethics**
   - Questions about informed consent processes (if applicable)
   - Considerations about data collection methods and privacy
   - Questions about potential risks to participants or communities
   - Considerations about cultural sensitivity and respect

3. **Representation and Interpretation**
   - Questions about how I represent others' perspectives
   - Considerations about potential biases in my interpretation
   - Questions about whether I've avoided stereotyping or generalizing
   - Considerations about contextualizing others' words and actions

4. **Impact Assessment**
   - Questions about potential consequences of my work
   - Considerations about who benefits from this research
   - Questions about potential harms and how to mitigate them
   - Considerations about long-term impacts beyond publication

5. **Researcher Positionality**
   - Questions about my own background and biases
   - Considerations about my relationship to the subject matter
   - Questions about transparency regarding my perspective
   - Considerations about reflexivity throughout the process

For each section, provide:
- 3-5 specific reflection questions that require thoughtful consideration
- Potential ethical principles or frameworks relevant to that dimension
- Suggestions for documenting my ethical reasoning process

This framework should guide my own ethical reflection rather than providing definitive ethical judgments about my specific project.