Drafting with Structure

Here are my raw notes for the [Introduction / Discussion] of a [FIELD] paper:
[PASTE MESSY BULLET POINTS]

Do NOT write the section. Instead:
1. Give me a paragraph-by-paragraph outline, with a one-sentence purpose for each paragraph.
2. For each paragraph, state which of my notes belong there and what evidence is still missing.
3. Show me the logical thread from paragraph 1 to the last one in a single flowchart-style list.
4. Point out any claim in my notes that is not supported by the evidence I mentioned.

'Do NOT write the section' is the key line. You get architecture, and the words stay yours.

Here is a paragraph I wrote: [PASTE]

Analyse it as a journal editor:
1. What is the topic sentence actually claiming? Restate it in 10 words.
2. Does every following sentence support that claim? Flag the ones that drift.
3. Which sentences are padding, hedging twice, or saying the same thing?
4. Rate its clarity 1-10 and tell me the single change with the biggest impact.

Give me the analysis first. Only after that, show one rewritten version that keeps my vocabulary and sentence rhythm.

Analysis before rewrite. You learn the pattern, so the next paragraph you write yourself is better.

My key findings: [LIST 3-5 FINDINGS WITH NUMBERS]
My literature context: [2-3 SENTENCES ON WHAT PRIOR STUDIES FOUND]
My theoretical framework: [NAME]

For each finding, generate a discussion scaffold with four slots:
(a) restate the finding in one sentence,
(b) does it confirm, contradict or extend prior work, and which work,
(c) the most plausible explanation grounded in my framework,
(d) one rival explanation I must acknowledge.

Do not write flowing prose. Give me the slots so I can write them.

The four-slot structure is exactly what strong Discussion paragraphs do, and the rival explanation is what reviewers reward.

Here is my full paper draft (or my Methods + Results + Conclusion): [PASTE]

Write 3 structured abstracts of 200-250 words: Background, Objective, Methods, Results (with actual numbers from my text), Conclusion.
- Version A: emphasise the theoretical contribution.
- Version B: emphasise the practical/policy implication.
- Version C: emphasise the methodological novelty.
Use only claims and numbers present in my text. Then tell me which version best matches [TARGET JOURNAL] and why.

Three framings of the same evidence show you what your paper is really contributing. This is a strategic decision, not a wording one.

Review this text for hallmarks of generic AI writing: [PASTE]

Flag and list every instance of:
- empty intensifiers (crucial, pivotal, delve, robust, comprehensive, landscape, realm, tapestry)
- three-item lists used for rhythm rather than meaning
- sentences that state the obvious or restate the previous sentence
- "It is important to note that" style filler
- vague attributions like "studies show" with no specific study

For each, quote it and propose a precise, discipline-specific replacement. Keep my hedging and my terminology.

Editors reject fluent-but-empty prose. This prompt removes the exact fingerprints that make a paper read as machine-written.

Paper abstract: [PASTE]
Target journal: [NAME]

1. Propose 8 titles: 3 descriptive, 3 with a finding-forward claim, 2 with a colon structure. Max 15 words each.
2. Suggest 6 keywords that maximise indexing discoverability without duplicating title words.
3. For each of my tables/figures described here [PASTE DESCRIPTIONS], write a standalone caption that a reader could understand without the body text.

Captions and titles are where discoverability is won, and they are low-risk, high-return AI tasks.