50 AI Prompts for Scientists & Researchers: Lab to Publication (2026)

You are a research librarian with expertise in [FIELD].

I am conducting a systematic literature review on: [RESEARCH TOPIC]

Research question: [SPECIFIC QUESTION]
Scope: Papers from [START YEAR] to [END YEAR]
Databases to search: [PubMed/Web of Science/Scopus/IEEE/etc.]

Develop a comprehensive search strategy including:
1. Key search terms organized by concept (PICO/PEO framework if applicable)
2. Boolean search strings for each database
3. MeSH terms or controlled vocabulary (if applicable)
4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
5. Screening process (title → abstract → full text)
6. Quality assessment tool recommendation for this study type
7. Data extraction template with relevant fields
8. PRISMA flow diagram structure

Note: This strategy will be refined after initial search results are reviewed.

I have reviewed [X] papers on [RESEARCH TOPIC].

Key findings from the existing literature:
- [FINDING 1 — cite key papers]
- [FINDING 2 — cite key papers]
- [FINDING 3 — cite key papers]
- [FINDING 4 — cite key papers]

Methodological approaches used:
- [METHOD 1 — frequency of use]
- [METHOD 2 — frequency of use]

Help me identify gaps by analyzing:
1. Underexplored sub-topics within this domain
2. Methodological limitations across studies
3. Population/sample gaps (who hasn't been studied?)
4. Geographic or contextual gaps
5. Contradictions or inconsistencies between findings
6. Questions raised but not answered by existing work
7. How these gaps map to potential research contributions

Present as a gap matrix with gap type, evidence, and potential research direction for each.

Critically appraise this research paper:

Title: [TITLE]
Authors: [AUTHORS]
Journal: [JOURNAL], [YEAR]
Study design: [TYPE]

Key information from the paper:
[PASTE ABSTRACT AND KEY METHODS/RESULTS]

Provide a structured critical appraisal:
1. Research question clarity and significance
2. Methodology assessment:
   - Study design appropriateness
   - Sample size and selection
   - Data collection rigor
   - Analysis methods validity
3. Results interpretation:
   - Do results support conclusions?
   - Effect sizes and clinical/practical significance
   - Confidence intervals and p-values context
4. Limitations acknowledged vs. unacknowledged
5. Bias risk assessment (selection, measurement, reporting)
6. How this paper advances the field
7. Relevance to my research on [YOUR TOPIC]

Rate overall quality: Strong / Moderate / Weak — with justification.

I need to synthesize findings from [X] papers on [TOPIC].

Paper summaries:
- Paper 1: [AUTHORS, YEAR] — Key finding: [SUMMARY]
- Paper 2: [AUTHORS, YEAR] — Key finding: [SUMMARY]
- Paper 3: [AUTHORS, YEAR] — Key finding: [SUMMARY]
- Paper 4: [AUTHORS, YEAR] — Key finding: [SUMMARY]
- Paper 5: [AUTHORS, YEAR] — Key finding: [SUMMARY]
[Add more as needed]

Perform a thematic synthesis:
1. Identify recurring themes across papers
2. Group findings by theme with source attribution
3. Note areas of agreement and disagreement
4. Identify the dominant theoretical frameworks used
5. Assess the overall evidence strength for each theme
6. Map how themes relate to each other
7. Highlight the most novel or unexpected findings
8. Write a narrative synthesis paragraph for each major theme

I am studying [RESEARCH TOPIC] and have identified these seminal papers:

1. [AUTHOR, YEAR, TITLE — brief description]
2. [AUTHOR, YEAR, TITLE — brief description]
3. [AUTHOR, YEAR, TITLE — brief description]
4. [AUTHOR, YEAR, TITLE — brief description]

Help me map the citation landscape:
1. What research tradition does each paper belong to?
2. Which theoretical schools do they represent?
3. Where do their citation networks overlap?
4. What key subsequent papers build on each?
5. Which methodological lineage does each follow?
6. Where are the intellectual boundaries between camps?
7. Which camp has more recent activity and momentum?
8. Suggest 5-10 papers I should read next based on these connections

I am exploring this broad research area: [TOPIC]

My initial research question: [ROUGH QUESTION]

My field: [DISCIPLINE]
My expertise: [SPECIFIC AREA]
Available resources: [LAB EQUIPMENT/DATASETS/FUNDING LEVEL]
Timeline: [MONTHS/YEARS]

Help me refine this into a testable research question:
1. Identify the dependent and independent variables
2. Propose 3 versions: narrow, moderate, and broad scope
3. For each version, assess:
   - Testability with available resources
   - Originality and contribution to the field
   - Feasibility within the timeline
   - Potential impact and significance
4. Recommend which scope is optimal and why
5. Suggest the theoretical framework that best fits
6. Formulate both null and alternative hypotheses

I observed the following patterns in my preliminary data:

Dataset description: [WHAT WAS MEASURED, SAMPLE SIZE, CONTEXT]
Pattern 1: [DESCRIBE OBSERVATION]
Pattern 2: [DESCRIBE OBSERVATION]
Pattern 3: [DESCRIBE OBSERVATION]
Unexpected finding: [DESCRIBE]

Generate plausible hypotheses:
1. For each pattern, propose 2-3 mechanistic explanations
2. Identify which existing theories could explain each pattern
3. Suggest alternative explanations (confounders, artifacts)
4. Propose a unifying hypothesis that explains multiple patterns
5. For the unexpected finding, brainstorm 5 possible explanations
6. Rank hypotheses by testability and novelty
7. For the top 3, suggest specific experiments to test them
8. Identify which hypotheses, if confirmed, would be most impactful

My research is in [PRIMARY FIELD] studying [SPECIFIC PHENOMENON].

I want to explore insights from adjacent fields.

Adjacent fields to consider: [LIST 2-3 FIELDS]
Current understanding: [WHAT WE KNOW]
Current limitation: [WHAT WE CAN'T EXPLAIN]

Help me discover cross-disciplinary connections:
1. Analogous phenomena in each adjacent field
2. Theoretical frameworks from those fields that might apply
3. Methodological techniques that could transfer
4. Research groups working at these intersections
5. Three novel hypotheses combining insights across fields
6. For each hypothesis, assess: novelty, testability, risk level
7. Potential collaboration opportunities
8. Journals that publish cross-disciplinary work in these areas

My experiment produced unexpected null results.

Hypothesis tested: [ORIGINAL HYPOTHESIS]
Methodology: [BRIEF DESCRIPTION]
Expected result: [WHAT WE PREDICTED]
Actual result: [NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT / UNEXPECTED DIRECTION]
Sample size: [N]
Power analysis: [WAS IT ADEQUATELY POWERED?]

Help me analyze this null result:
1. Is this a true null or could it be a false negative?
2. Power analysis review: was the sample sufficient?
3. Methodological factors that could mask a real effect
4. Alternative explanations for the null finding
5. What does this null result tell us theoretically?
6. How does it compare to similar studies' findings?
7. Revised hypotheses based on this evidence
8. Publication strategy for a meaningful null result

I want to build a predictive model for [OUTCOME VARIABLE] in [DOMAIN].

Known predictors from literature:
- [PREDICTOR 1 — strength of evidence]
- [PREDICTOR 2 — strength of evidence]
- [PREDICTOR 3 — strength of evidence]

My novel candidate predictors:
- [PREDICTOR A — rationale]
- [PREDICTOR B — rationale]

Help me develop the modeling framework:
1. Theoretical justification for each predictor
2. Expected direction and magnitude of each effect
3. Potential interaction effects between predictors
4. Confounding variables to control for
5. Mediating vs. moderating variable identification
6. Suggested model type and why (regression, ML, SEM, etc.)
7. Minimum sample size requirement
8. Model validation strategy

Design an experiment to test this hypothesis:

Hypothesis: [STATE CLEARLY]
Field: [DISCIPLINE]
Available resources: [EQUIPMENT/FACILITIES/BUDGET]
Timeline: [DURATION]
Ethical considerations: [IRB/IACUC REQUIREMENTS]

Provide a complete experimental design:
1. Study design type and justification
2. Independent variables and levels
3. Dependent variables and measurement methods
4. Control conditions
5. Sample size calculation with assumptions
6. Randomization procedure
7. Blinding strategy (if applicable)
8. Data collection protocol (step-by-step)
9. Potential confounding variables and controls
10. Statistical analysis plan (primary and secondary analyses)
11. Expected timeline with milestones
12. Ethical considerations and informed consent requirements

I am designing an experiment in [FIELD] testing [INTERVENTION].

Study population: [DESCRIBE]
Intervention: [DESCRIBE]
Primary outcome: [MEASURE]

Help me design the control strategy:
1. What type of control is most appropriate? (placebo, active, waitlist, standard-of-care, sham)
2. Justify the control choice for this study design
3. Identify potential confounds the control must address
4. Describe matching criteria if using matched controls
5. Address ethical considerations of the control condition
6. Propose positive and negative controls
7. Consider dose-response or graduated control options
8. Plan for crossover or rescue protocols if needed

Calculate sample size requirements for my study.

Study design: [TYPE — RCT, cohort, cross-sectional, etc.]
Primary outcome: [VARIABLE AND MEASUREMENT]
Expected effect size: [SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE or specific value]
Basis for effect size estimate: [PILOT DATA/LITERATURE]
Alpha level: [0.05 standard or other]
Desired power: [0.80 standard or other]
Analysis method: [T-TEST/ANOVA/REGRESSION/CHI-SQUARE/etc.]

Provide:
1. Required sample size per group with calculation shown
2. Adjustment for expected attrition rate of [X]%
3. Sensitivity analysis with different effect sizes
4. Minimum detectable effect size with feasible sample
5. Implications of under-powering the study
6. Recruitment strategy to achieve required sample
7. Interim analysis considerations
8. Software recommendation for running the power analysis

Help me design a research survey for my study on [TOPIC].

Research questions:
1. [RQ1]
2. [RQ2]
3. [RQ3]

Target population: [DESCRIBE]
Administration method: [ONLINE/IN-PERSON/PHONE]
Target completion time: [X] minutes
Validated scales I want to include: [LIST]

Develop:
1. Survey structure and flow logic
2. Demographic section (relevant variables only)
3. Items for each research question (with response scales)
4. Attention check questions (2-3)
5. Reverse-coded items for response bias detection
6. Skip logic conditions
7. Pilot testing protocol
8. Validity and reliability assessment plan
9. Sampling strategy and recruitment approach
10. Data cleaning procedures before analysis

Review my experimental protocol for reproducibility:

Method description:
[PASTE YOUR METHODS SECTION OR PROTOCOL]

Evaluate against reproducibility standards:
1. Are all reagents/materials specified with catalog numbers?
2. Are equipment settings fully documented?
3. Are all software versions and parameters listed?
4. Is the randomization procedure explicitly described?
5. Are inclusion/exclusion criteria unambiguous?
6. Are calibration and quality control steps documented?
7. Are all analysis parameters pre-specified?
8. Could another researcher replicate this from the protocol alone?

For each gap found:
- Identify what specific information is missing
- Explain why it matters for reproducibility
- Suggest exact language to add

Rate overall reproducibility: High / Moderate / Low.

Create a statistical analysis plan for my study.

Study design: [TYPE]
Research questions:
1. [RQ1]
2. [RQ2]
Sample size: [N]
Variables:
- Dependent: [LIST WITH TYPES — continuous, categorical, ordinal]
- Independent: [LIST WITH TYPES]
- Covariates: [LIST]
- Potential confounders: [LIST]

Develop a complete analysis plan:
1. Descriptive statistics for each variable
2. Assumption testing procedures (normality, homogeneity, etc.)
3. Primary analysis for each research question
4. Post-hoc analyses if applicable
5. Effect size measures
6. Multiple comparison corrections
7. Missing data handling strategy
8. Sensitivity analyses
9. Subgroup analyses (if pre-planned)
10. Results reporting format (APA/journal-specific)

Specify software and packages for each analysis.

I need to present these research results visually:

Data type: [DESCRIBE DATASET]
Key findings:
1. [FINDING 1 — variables involved]
2. [FINDING 2 — variables involved]
3. [FINDING 3 — variables involved]

Target audience: [JOURNAL REVIEWERS/CONFERENCE/GENERAL PUBLIC]
Publication: [JOURNAL NAME/CONFERENCE]
Color requirements: [COLORBLIND-FRIENDLY NEEDED?]

Recommend a visualization strategy:
1. Best chart type for each finding (with justification)
2. Required statistical annotations
3. Axis labeling and scaling recommendations
4. Color palette recommendation
5. Figure layout for multi-panel figures
6. Caption writing template for each figure
7. Supplementary figures vs. main text allocation
8. Code snippet for generating each plot in [R/Python/MATLAB]

Help me interpret these regression results:

Model type: [LINEAR/LOGISTIC/MULTILEVEL/COX/etc.]
Dependent variable: [DESCRIBE]
Sample size: [N]

Results:
[PASTE REGRESSION OUTPUT TABLE]

Model fit statistics:
- R² / Pseudo R²: [VALUE]
- F-statistic / Chi-square: [VALUE]
- AIC/BIC: [VALUE]

Provide:
1. Plain-language interpretation of each coefficient
2. Practical significance (not just statistical)
3. Effect size interpretation in context
4. Model fit assessment
5. Assumption violation indicators in the output
6. Comparison to similar studies' findings
7. Limitations of these results
8. Write a results paragraph suitable for [TARGET JOURNAL]

I found potential outliers in my dataset.

Dataset description: [WHAT, SAMPLE SIZE, KEY VARIABLES]
Outliers identified:
- Observation [X]: [VALUES AND WHY IT'S ANOMALOUS]
- Observation [Y]: [VALUES AND WHY IT'S ANOMALOUS]

Method used to identify: [Z-SCORE/IQR/VISUAL/MAHALANOBIS]

Help me decide how to handle these:
1. Verify: What checks confirm these are true outliers vs. data errors?
2. Investigate: What could have caused these values?
3. Report: How should I document the decision?
4. Options analysis:
   - Keep with justification
   - Winsorize
   - Transform
   - Remove with justification
5. Run sensitivity: Results with and without outliers
6. Transparency: How to report this in methods section
7. Reviewer anticipation: What questions will reviewers ask?

I need to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings from my mixed methods study.

Quantitative findings:
- [KEY STATISTICAL RESULT 1]
- [KEY STATISTICAL RESULT 2]
- [KEY STATISTICAL RESULT 3]

Qualitative themes:
- [THEME 1 — description]
- [THEME 2 — description]
- [THEME 3 — description]

Integration design: [CONVERGENT/EXPLANATORY SEQUENTIAL/EXPLORATORY SEQUENTIAL]

Help me integrate the findings:
1. Create a joint display table (quant finding ↔ qual theme)
2. Identify areas of convergence
3. Identify areas of divergence or complementarity
4. Develop meta-inferences from the integration
5. Address the "so what" — what does integration reveal that neither alone would?
6. Write an integrated findings narrative
7. Visual model showing how methods inform each other

Help me draft a Specific Aims page for an [NIH R01/NSF/ERC/etc.] grant proposal.

Project title: [TITLE]
Research area: [FIELD]
Central hypothesis: [STATE]
Preliminary data summary: [BRIEF DESCRIPTION]
Innovation: [WHAT'S NEW ABOUT THIS APPROACH]

Structure the Specific Aims page:
1. Opening paragraph: Hook with the problem's significance (3-4 sentences)
2. Gap paragraph: What's unknown and why it matters
3. Long-term goal and overall objective statement
4. Central hypothesis and rationale
5. Specific Aims (3-4 aims):
   - Aim title
   - Hypothesis for each aim
   - Approach summary (2-3 sentences)
   - Expected outcome
6. Impact statement: How this changes the field

Keep to one page. Every sentence must justify why this research deserves funding.

Draft the Significance and Innovation sections for my grant on [TOPIC].

Research context:
- Current state of the field: [SUMMARIZE]
- Key unsolved problem: [DESCRIBE]
- Why existing approaches fail: [EXPLAIN]
- My approach: [DESCRIBE]
- Preliminary data: [SUMMARIZE]

Draft both sections:

SIGNIFICANCE (target: 1.5 pages):
1. Burden of the problem (epidemiological/scientific/economic data)
2. Current knowledge and its limitations
3. How this project addresses critical barriers
4. Expected impact on the field
5. Relevance to funding agency's mission

INNOVATION (target: 1 page):
1. Conceptual innovation (new framework or model)
2. Technical innovation (new methods or approaches)
3. Application innovation (new use of existing tools)
4. How this differs from competing approaches
5. Potential to shift current research paradigms

Create a detailed research timeline for a [X]-year [GRANT TYPE] proposal.

Aims:
- Aim 1: [TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION]
- Aim 2: [TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION]
- Aim 3: [TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION]

Personnel:
- PI: [X]% effort
- Postdoc: [X]
- Graduate students: [X]
- Technicians: [X]

Create:
1. Gantt chart structure with quarterly milestones
2. Task dependencies between aims
3. Personnel assignment per task
4. Go/no-go decision points
5. Risk mitigation for each aim's critical experiments
6. Alternative approaches if primary methods fail
7. Publication and dissemination timeline
8. Milestones for annual progress reports

Write a budget justification for a [GRANT TYPE] proposal.

Budget items:
- Senior personnel: [LIST WITH % EFFORT AND SALARY]
- Postdoctoral: [NUMBER, SALARY]
- Graduate students: [NUMBER, STIPEND]
- Fringe benefits: [RATE]
- Equipment: [LIST ITEMS AND COSTS]
- Travel: [CONFERENCES AND FIELDWORK]
- Supplies: [CATEGORIES AND AMOUNTS]
- Publication costs: [ESTIMATE]
- Subcontract (if any): [DETAILS]
- Indirect costs: [RATE]

For each line item, provide:
1. What the cost covers (specific, not vague)
2. Why it's necessary for the project
3. How the amount was calculated
4. Justification that it's reasonable for the scope

Write a Broader Impacts statement for my [NSF/equivalent] proposal on [TOPIC].

Research description: [BRIEF SUMMARY]
PI background: [CAREER STAGE, INSTITUTION TYPE]
Existing outreach: [CURRENT ACTIVITIES]
Target communities: [WHO BENEFITS]

Address these broader impact categories:
1. Full participation of underrepresented groups
2. STEM education and educator development
3. Public engagement with science
4. Enhanced research infrastructure
5. Societal benefit of the research outcomes

For each applicable category:
- Specific activity planned
- Target audience and expected reach
- Assessment method for measuring impact
- How it integrates with (not bolted onto) the research
- Institutional support available

Avoid generic statements. Every activity must be specific and feasible.

Help me structure the Introduction for a paper on [TOPIC].

Target journal: [JOURNAL NAME]
Word limit for Introduction: [WORD COUNT]
Key references I want to incorporate: [LIST 5-8]
My study's contribution: [WHAT'S NEW]

Structure the Introduction using the funnel approach:
1. Opening hook: Broad context (2-3 sentences)
2. Background: What's known (2-3 paragraphs, cite key studies)
3. Gap: What's unknown or contradictory (1 paragraph)
4. Bridge: How your study addresses this gap
5. Objective statement: Specific aim of this paper
6. Brief approach description (1-2 sentences)
7. Findings preview (if journal style allows)

For each paragraph, provide:
- The point it makes
- Which references to cite where
- Transition sentence to the next paragraph

Review my Methods section for completeness.

Study type: [DESIGN]
Field: [DISCIPLINE]
Target journal: [NAME]
Reporting guideline: [CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/ARRIVE/etc.]

Methods draft:
[PASTE YOUR METHODS SECTION]

Check against the relevant reporting guideline:
1. Items present and adequately described
2. Items missing or insufficiently described
3. Items that need more specificity for reproduction
4. Statistical methods completely described?
5. Software and version numbers included?
6. Ethical approvals and registrations mentioned?
7. Sample size justification provided?
8. Data availability statement needed?

Flag each issue with severity: Critical / Important / Minor.

Help me draft the Discussion for my paper on [TOPIC].

Key results:
1. [RESULT 1 — with statistical details]
2. [RESULT 2 — with statistical details]
3. [RESULT 3 — with statistical details]

Expected findings confirmed: [WHICH]
Unexpected findings: [WHICH]
Contradicts existing literature: [WHICH RESULTS AND WHICH PAPERS]

Build the Discussion structure:
1. Opening: Restate main finding in context (no statistics)
2. Result-by-result interpretation:
   - What it means
   - How it compares to existing literature
   - Potential mechanisms or explanations
3. Integration: What the results collectively mean
4. Limitations: Honest, specific, with impact assessment
5. Future directions: Specific next studies (not vague)
6. Conclusion paragraph: Significance for the field

For contradictory findings, provide multiple interpretations.

Write a structured abstract for my paper.

Paper type: [ORIGINAL RESEARCH/REVIEW/CASE STUDY]
Target journal: [NAME]
Abstract format: [STRUCTURED/UNSTRUCTURED]
Word limit: [X] words

Content for the abstract:
- Background/context: [2-3 sentences]
- Objective: [1 sentence]
- Methods: [KEY DESIGN DETAILS]
- Results: [MAIN FINDINGS WITH KEY NUMBERS]
- Conclusion: [MAIN TAKEAWAY]

Write the abstract following journal guidelines:
1. Background must establish why this matters
2. Methods must include design, setting, participants, measures
3. Results must include specific numbers (not "significant increase")
4. Conclusion must state the main implication
5. Last sentence: clinical/practical significance

Then write a lay summary version (100 words) for press/public audiences.

Write a cover letter for submitting my manuscript to [JOURNAL NAME].

Manuscript title: [TITLE]
Manuscript type: [ORIGINAL ARTICLE/LETTER/REVIEW]
Authors: [LIST]
Corresponding author: [NAME, AFFILIATION]

Key selling points of this paper:
1. [WHY THIS IS SIGNIFICANT]
2. [WHAT'S NOVEL]
3. [WHY THIS JOURNAL]

Word limit context: [IS IT WITHIN LIMITS?]
Suggested reviewers: [2-3 NAMES IF REQUIRED]
Excluded reviewers: [IF ANY, WITH REASON]

Write a concise cover letter (under 300 words) that:
1. States the manuscript title and type
2. Summarizes the key finding in 2 sentences
3. Explains why this fits the journal's scope
4. Highlights novelty and significance
5. Confirms ethical compliance and no conflicts
6. Lists any special requests (color figures, supplements)
7. Provides the corresponding author contact

Help me write a point-by-point response to peer reviewers.

Reviewer 1 comments:
1. [COMMENT 1]
2. [COMMENT 2]
3. [COMMENT 3]

Reviewer 2 comments:
1. [COMMENT 1]
2. [COMMENT 2]

Editor comments:
1. [COMMENT]

For each comment, help me draft:
1. Acknowledgment of the point (respectful, not sycophantic)
2. Summary of the change made OR rationale for not changing
3. Exact location in the manuscript where the change appears
4. Additional analysis or data provided (if requested)

Tone: Grateful for constructive feedback, confident in responses, never defensive. When disagreeing with a reviewer, provide evidence-based reasoning.

Format as: "Reviewer 1, Comment 1:" followed by the response.

I am preparing to submit my manuscript. Review it for common weaknesses.

[PASTE ABSTRACT AND CONCLUSION, OR FULL MANUSCRIPT]

Check for these common submission pitfalls:
1. Title: Informative, specific, contains key terms?
2. Abstract: All key numbers present? Conclusion matches results?
3. Introduction: Clear gap statement? Objective matches results?
4. Methods: Replicable? All details for statistical tests?
5. Results: Presented without interpretation? Tables match text?
6. Discussion: First paragraph restates findings without stats?
7. Limitations: Honest and specific?
8. References: Balanced across relevant research groups?
9. Figures/tables: Can they stand alone with captions?
10. Consistency: Do numbers match across abstract/text/tables?

Grade each section: Ready / Needs Minor Edits / Needs Major Revision.

Suggest improvements for this manuscript section:

Section type: [INTRODUCTION/METHODS/RESULTS/DISCUSSION]
Target journal: [NAME]
Current text:
[PASTE THE SECTION]

Evaluate and suggest improvements for:
1. Clarity: Are any sentences ambiguous or confusing?
2. Flow: Does the argument progress logically?
3. Conciseness: Can any sentences be shortened?
4. Jargon: Are technical terms defined or necessary?
5. Active vs. passive voice balance
6. Paragraph structure and transition sentences
7. Citation placement and density
8. Adherence to journal style (if known)

For each suggestion, show the original text and proposed revision.

Audit my manuscript figures and tables for publication readiness.

Figures:
- Figure 1: [DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE]
- Figure 2: [DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE]
- Figure 3: [DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE]

Tables:
- Table 1: [DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE]
- Table 2: [DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE]

For each figure/table, evaluate:
1. Does it present information not already in the text?
2. Can it stand alone with its caption?
3. Is the caption informative enough?
4. Are axes labeled with units?
5. Is the color scheme accessible (colorblind-friendly)?
6. Are error bars present and defined?
7. Is the resolution sufficient (300+ dpi)?
8. Does it conform to journal formatting requirements?

Suggest which figures to keep, combine, move to supplement, or remove.

Help me prepare my manuscript for submission with proper disclosures.

AI tools used during this project:
- [TOOL 1 — used for: SPECIFIC PURPOSE]
- [TOOL 2 — used for: SPECIFIC PURPOSE]

Target journal: [NAME]
Journal's AI use policy: [IF KNOWN]

Help me:
1. Draft an AI use disclosure statement for the methods section
2. Check if the journal has specific AI reporting requirements
3. Review my manuscript draft for unintentional close paraphrasing
4. Ensure all ideas are properly attributed
5. Verify I haven't accidentally used AI-generated citations (hallucinations)
6. Write an author contribution statement (CRediT format)
7. Prepare conflict of interest declarations
8. Check data availability statement requirements

Draft an email proposing a research collaboration.

My background: [FIELD, INSTITUTION, EXPERTISE]
Their background: [NAME, FIELD, KEY PUBLICATIONS]
Proposed collaboration: [WHAT WE'D DO TOGETHER]
What I bring: [METHODS/DATA/EXPERTISE/FUNDING]
What I need: [THEIR SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION]
Timeline: [PROPOSED]

Write a concise email (under 250 words) that:
1. Shows I've read their work (reference a specific paper)
2. Clearly states the proposed project
3. Explains the mutual benefit
4. Proposes a concrete next step (call, meeting)
5. Includes relevant links to my work

Tone: Professional, respectful of their time, specific not vague.

Create a structured research group meeting agenda.

Group size: [X] members
Meeting frequency: [WEEKLY/BIWEEKLY]
Active projects: [LIST]
Upcoming deadlines: [LIST]

Generate an agenda template including:
1. Progress updates format (time-boxed per project)
2. Paper discussion structure (for journal clubs)
3. Troubleshooting slot for ongoing issues
4. Skills training or methodology review segment
5. Upcoming conferences, grants, and deadlines review
6. Action items tracker format
7. Rotating roles (presenter, note-taker, facilitator)
8. Time allocation for a [60/90]-minute meeting

Help me prepare for a mentorship meeting with my [ADVISOR/MENTEE].

My role: [GRADUATE STUDENT/POSTDOC/JUNIOR FACULTY/PI]
Meeting context: [REGULAR CHECK-IN/PROGRESS REVIEW/CAREER DISCUSSION]
Current challenges: [LIST]
Recent accomplishments: [LIST]
Decisions needed: [LIST]

Prepare:
1. Structured update on each active project (3 bullet points each)
2. Questions to ask ranked by priority
3. Decision options to present (not just problems)
4. Timeline updates or adjustments to discuss
5. Resources or support needed
6. Career development topics to raise
7. Follow-up items from last meeting

Create an outline for a [X]-minute conference presentation.

Paper/research: [TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION]
Conference: [NAME]
Audience: [SPECIALISTS/GENERAL SCIENTIFIC/INTERDISCIPLINARY]
Key message: [ONE SENTENCE TAKEAWAY]

Structure the presentation:
1. Opening hook (30 seconds): [SUGGEST AN APPROACH]
2. Problem/motivation (2 minutes): Why this matters
3. Background (2 minutes): Just enough context
4. Methods (2-3 minutes): Visual-first, skip details in slides
5. Results (5-7 minutes): Build to the key finding
6. Discussion (2 minutes): Implications and limitations
7. Conclusion (1 minute): Key takeaway and future work
8. Questions preparation: 5 likely questions with brief answers

For each section, suggest:
- Number of slides
- Visual type (graph, diagram, photo, text)
- Transition sentence to next section

Create a standardized lab notebook entry template for [EXPERIMENT TYPE].

Field: [DISCIPLINE]
Regulatory requirements: [GLP/GMP/NONE]

Design a template with:
1. Header: Date, project, experiment number, personnel
2. Objective: Why this experiment is being run
3. Protocol reference and any deviations
4. Materials and reagents (with lot numbers and expiry)
5. Equipment (with calibration status)
6. Procedure (step-by-step with timestamps)
7. Raw data recording format
8. Observations during experiment
9. Calculations and analysis
10. Results and interpretation
11. Issues encountered and troubleshooting
12. Next steps
13. Signature and witness lines (if required)

Help me set up a systematic literature monitoring system for [RESEARCH TOPIC].

Key topics to track:
1. [TOPIC 1]
2. [TOPIC 2]
3. [TOPIC 3]

Key researchers to follow: [LIST 5-10 NAMES]
Key journals: [LIST 5-10]

Design a monitoring system:
1. Search alerts to set up (Google Scholar, PubMed, etc.)
2. Search strings for each topic
3. Frequency of review (daily/weekly/monthly per source)
4. Triage criteria: Must-read vs. scan vs. file
5. Citation tracking for key papers
6. Preprint server monitoring plan
7. Social media/conference feeds to follow
8. Monthly synthesis routine (30-minute protocol)

Create a data management plan for my [GRANT TYPE] proposal on [TOPIC].

Data types:
- [DATA TYPE 1: format, estimated volume]
- [DATA TYPE 2: format, estimated volume]
- [DATA TYPE 3: format, estimated volume]

Requirements: [FUNDER DMP REQUIREMENTS]
Sensitive data: [YES/NO — describe]

Address all standard DMP components:
1. Data description and types generated
2. Data formats and standards used
3. Data storage during the project
4. Backup and security procedures
5. Quality assurance procedures
6. Access and sharing policies
7. Ethical and legal compliance
8. Long-term preservation and repository selection
9. Responsibilities and roles
10. Budget for data management activities

Help me draft an IRB/ethics board application for my study.

Study title: [TITLE]
Study design: [TYPE]
Participants: [POPULATION, N, RECRUITMENT METHOD]
Procedures: [WHAT PARTICIPANTS WILL DO]
Risks: [IDENTIFIED RISKS]
Benefits: [DIRECT AND INDIRECT]
Data handling: [COLLECTION, STORAGE, ANONYMIZATION]

Draft these components:
1. Study purpose and background (lay language)
2. Participant eligibility criteria
3. Recruitment procedures and materials
4. Informed consent process description
5. Study procedures (step-by-step from participant view)
6. Risk-benefit analysis
7. Data management and confidentiality measures
8. Adverse event reporting procedures
9. Vulnerable population protections (if applicable)
10. Compensation details and justification

Create a research poster design brief for [CONFERENCE NAME].

Paper/research: [TITLE]
Poster dimensions: [WIDTH x HEIGHT]
Key finding: [ONE SENTENCE]
Audience: [DESCRIBE]

Structure the poster:
1. Title bar: Title, authors, affiliations, logos
2. Introduction: 3-4 sentences max with one key figure
3. Methods: Visual flowchart preferred over text
4. Results: 2-3 key figures with minimal text
5. Discussion: 3-4 bullet points
6. Conclusion: One sentence takeaway
7. References: Abbreviated, 5-8 max
8. QR code: Link to full paper/data

Design principles:
- Font sizes for each section
- Color scheme recommendation
- Visual hierarchy guidance
- White space requirements
- Readability from 4-foot distance

Create a detailed outline for Chapter [X] of my [THESIS/DISSERTATION].

Chapter topic: [TITLE]
Role in thesis: [INTRODUCTION/LITERATURE/METHODS/RESULTS/DISCUSSION]
Target length: [PAGES/WORDS]
Committee expectations: [ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS]
Key content: [LIST MAIN POINTS TO COVER]

Develop:
1. Section-by-section outline with estimated word counts
2. Key arguments or points per section
3. Figures and tables to include
4. References to incorporate per section
5. Transitions between sections
6. How this chapter connects to previous/next chapters
7. Committee concerns to proactively address
8. Writing timeline with daily/weekly targets

Draft a systematic review protocol following PRISMA-P guidelines.

Review question: [SPECIFIC QUESTION]
PICO/PEO framework:
- Population: [DESCRIBE]
- Intervention/Exposure: [DESCRIBE]
- Comparison: [DESCRIBE]
- Outcome: [DESCRIBE]

Draft the protocol including:
1. Registration plan (PROSPERO)
2. Eligibility criteria (detailed)
3. Information sources and search strategy
4. Study selection process
5. Data extraction procedures
6. Risk of bias assessment (tool selection)
7. Data synthesis approach (meta-analysis criteria)
8. Assessment of heterogeneity
9. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses
10. Certainty of evidence assessment (GRADE)
11. Protocol amendments procedure

I am planning a meta-analysis of [X] studies on [TOPIC].

Studies to include:
[LIST EACH STUDY WITH: Authors, Year, N, Effect Size, Effect Type]

Help me plan the analysis:
1. Effect size metric selection and conversions needed
2. Heterogeneity assessment plan (Q, I², tau²)
3. Fixed vs. random effects model selection criteria
4. Forest plot specifications
5. Funnel plot and publication bias tests
6. Subgroup analyses to perform
7. Meta-regression variables
8. Sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out, quality-based)
9. Software and packages to use
10. Reporting checklist (PRISMA)

Review my grant proposal from a reviewer's perspective.

Funding agency: [NAME]
Grant mechanism: [TYPE]
Review criteria: [LIST IF KNOWN]

Proposal sections:
[PASTE SPECIFIC AIMS OR FULL PROPOSAL SUMMARY]

Evaluate from a critical reviewer's perspective:
1. Significance: Does it address an important problem?
2. Innovation: Is the approach novel?
3. Approach: Is the methodology rigorous?
4. Investigator: Is the team qualified? (assess as written)
5. Environment: Are resources adequate?
6. Most likely criticism from each review criterion
7. Weakest point that could sink the proposal
8. Score prediction (1-9 NIH scale) with reasoning
9. Specific suggestions to strengthen before submission

Assess the commercialization potential of my research finding.

Finding: [DESCRIBE THE DISCOVERY/INVENTION]
Field: [DISCIPLINE]
Current TRL (Technology Readiness Level): [1-9]
IP status: [NONE/PROVISIONAL PATENT/FULL PATENT]
Market application: [DESCRIBE POTENTIAL USES]

Provide:
1. Market analysis framework for this innovation
2. Competitive landscape overview
3. IP strategy recommendations
4. Path from current TRL to TRL 6+ (prototype)
5. Funding sources for translation (SBIR/STTR, VC, industry)
6. Key risks and uncertainties
7. Timeline to first commercial application
8. Stakeholders to engage (industry, clinical, regulatory)

Help me write an annual progress report for my [GRANT/POSITION].

Reporting period: [DATES]
Original aims:
- Aim 1: [TITLE] — Status: [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/DELAYED]
- Aim 2: [TITLE] — Status: [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/DELAYED]
- Aim 3: [TITLE] — Status: [COMPLETE/IN PROGRESS/DELAYED]

Accomplishments: [LIST KEY RESULTS]
Publications: [LIST]
Presentations: [LIST]
Students trained: [LIST]
Challenges encountered: [LIST]
Budget status: [ON TRACK/OVER/UNDER]

Draft the progress report including:
1. Executive summary of progress
2. Aim-by-aim update with findings
3. Significant changes from original plan
4. Publications and dissemination activities
5. Training and mentoring activities
6. Plans for next reporting period
7. Budget summary and justification for any changes
8. Appendices to include