Writing Papers

Sources

Use parallel subagents to fetch:

• ArXiv: Open-access papers (most common)
• Anna's Archive: Download if not freely available
• Exa Search (mcp__exa__web_search_exa): Fallback
• Web search: General fallback

Subagent Processing

• Launch one subagent per paper (or per major section for long papers)
• Each agent extracts:
  • Title, authors, publication info
  • Abstract and key findings
  • Methodology overview
  • Important figures/tables
  • Citations and references

Artifact Creation

Compose with artifacts-builder skill - don't duplicate instructions.

Include:

• Paper summary (title, authors, abstract)
• Key visualizations (figures, concept maps)
• Navigation (collapsible sections, TOC)
• Searchable content (full-text search)
• Citations (properly formatted)
• Responsive design (mobile/desktop)

Batch Organization

When handling multiple papers:

• Group by week, topic, or theme
• Create dashboard with links between papers
• Highlight connections and cross-references
• Show thematic patterns

Output: Single HTML artifact per paper, or combined dashboard for batches.

Pre-Submission Paper Review Checklist

Use this checklist when reviewing academic papers before submission. Prioritize citation accuracy and template compliance as they can cause desk rejection.

1. Style & Formatting Consistency

• Template compliance: Verify required conference/journal template is used correctly
• Consistent terminology: Key terms used consistently throughout
• Voice consistency: Academic tone maintained; no unintended informal language
• Section structure: Logical flow verified (Introduction → Related Work → Method → Results → Discussion → Conclusion)

2. Citation Accuracy & Appropriateness

Priority: CRITICAL - Most important for scholarly integrity

• Quote verification: Every direct quote matches exact source wording
• Source claims: Each citation says what the paper claims it says
• Better citations: Search for more recent/authoritative sources where appropriate
• Citation format: All in-text citations match bibliography entries

3. Figure & Table Completeness

• All figures referenced: Verify all figures exist as files and are cited in text
• Table accuracy: Data matches actual study/analysis
• Alt text: Meaningful accessibility descriptions provided
• Figure quality: High-resolution images, anonymized if needed

4. Method & Results Integrity

• Participant count consistency: Numbers consistent throughout paper
• Quotes attribution: All participant quotes traceable to transcripts
• Method details complete: IRB approval mentioned if required
• Results support claims: Each claim backed by specific evidence

5. Contribution Clarity

• Abstract-body alignment: Abstract claims match what paper delivers
• Research questions addressed: Each stated question/obstacle gets explicit solution
• Novel contribution: Introduction distinguishes work from related work

6. Anonymization (if blind review)

Priority: CRITICAL - Can cause desk rejection

• Author information removed: No self-identifying details (institutions, grants, locations)
• Study location anonymized: Geographic references removed
• Supplementary materials: External links to code/data are anonymized

7. Reference Completeness

• All citations in bibliography: Every in-text citation has corresponding entry
• Bibliography formatting: Required format followed (APA, ACM, IEEE, etc.)
• DOIs included: Add DOI links where available for verification

8. Logical Coherence

• Theory-to-design mapping: Theoretical foundation informs design decisions
• Evaluation validates claims: Study findings support design implications
• No contradictions: Introduction promises match Discussion delivery

9. Writing Quality

• Proofread for typos: Spell-checker used; common errors reviewed
• Sentence clarity: Overly long sentences (>40 words) broken up
• Jargon defined: Technical terms defined on first use

10. Ethical & Inclusivity Check

• Participant consent: IRB approval and informed consent obtained
• Inclusive language: Gender-neutral pronouns; no assumptions about populations
• Limitations acknowledged: Honest assessment of scope limits included
• Data availability: Statement about repository access if applicable

Recommended Review Order

1. Citation accuracy (Item 2) — Critical for scholarly integrity
2. Anonymization (Item 6) — Can cause desk rejection
3. Method integrity (Item 4) — Ensures reproducibility
4. Figure/Table completeness (Item 3) — Avoids broken references
5. All others — For polish and clarity

Citation Verification Process

For each citation:

1. Locate source: Find original paper/book/website
2. Verify quote accuracy: If quoting, check exact wording matches
3. Verify claim accuracy: Confirm source says what you claim it says
4. Check context: Ensure quote/claim not taken out of context
5. Find better sources: Search for more recent or authoritative alternatives
6. Document verification: Note which citations verified and when