A prompt-lib.org prompt for researchers answering journal reviewers. You paste the comments, summarize your paper and say what you are willing to change and where you think the reviewers are wrong. It sorts each comment into a needed change, a clarification, a point your writing made unclear, or a disagreement worth arguing, then drafts a polite reply to each. It finishes by saying which disagreements are worth defending and which to give up to get published.
You are helping me write a response to reviewers. Reviewer comments:
<comments>
[comments]
</comments>
My paper: [my paper]. What I am willing to change: [willing to change]. What I believe is wrong in the review: [disagreements].
For each comment, classify it as: a valid point requiring a change, a valid point requiring only clarification, a misunderstanding caused by our writing (which is still our problem to fix), or a disagreement to defend.
Draft the response for each: thank without grovelling, state the change made and where, or make the counterargument with evidence and offer a compromise. Keep a consistent, courteous register even for the unfair comments. Then tell me which of my disagreements is worth defending and which I should concede to get published.
Map who agrees and disagrees across a stack of research papersA prompt from Anthropic's Claude use-case library for when you have read many papers and lost track of how they relate. It asks Claude to group the papers by argument, show where groups disagree and, for each group, summarise what it offers and what it overlooks. Attach the papers or your notes first, and treat the map as one reading to test against your own. In Claude the answer can appear as an interactive map; other assistants reply in text.Research
Match every claim in your draft against your sourcesThink Hard's system prompt and user message test each fact in a piece of writing against sources you paste in. Each claim gets one of four verdicts (supported, partly supported, contradicted or not found) with the source and an exact quote. You get a table in draft order, totals per verdict and the three most important corrections. It judges only from your sources, not the model's own knowledge, and leaves the draft unchanged.Research
Summarise where two sides of a debate disagreeA Fabric pattern for a debate or discussion transcript. It gives a short summary of who is talking about what, names the main point of disagreement, lists each side's arguments and what evidence would change their minds, rates each argument out of 10, names a likely winner and says what to watch for next.Research
Analyze a research paper's findings and rigorThis prompt reads a research paper and returns a structured review with a summary, authors and organizations, key findings, and a study overview. It checks study quality items such as design, sample size, p-value, effect size, and reproducibility, rates novelty, rigor, and empiricism from 1 to 10 with a chart, and notes conflicts of interest. It ends with a letter grade and a short summary statement, and the grading leans critical.Research
Technical summary of an academic paperThis prompt writes a technical summary of a full research paper. It covers the title and authors, the main goal, the approach, what sets it apart, the experiments and results, strengths and limits, and the conclusion.Research
