The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when Your study is done and you need a methods section that says exactly what you did, in enough detail for someone else to repeat it.
- {{readers}}
- {{venue}}
- {{style}}
- {{study_notes}}
- {{guideline}}
- {{ethics}}
- {{word_limit}}
Full prompt and why it works
Prompt
Write the methods section of my paper from the study notes below, for {{readers}}, so that another researcher could repeat the study from this section alone. It is going to {{venue}}, which expects {{style}}. My notes on what we did (design, participants or materials, procedure, measures, analysis), including any changes from the original plan: """ {{study_notes}} """ Reporting guideline or checklist we must follow, if any (for example CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE or COREQ): {{guideline}} Ethics approval and consent details: {{ethics}} Word limit for the section: {{word_limit}} Use these subheadings, or the venue's own if it names them: Design, Participants (or Materials or Data), Procedure, Measures, Analysis, Ethics. Write in the past tense, in full paragraphs, stating what was done rather than what was planned. For example, the form of a procedure sentence: "Participants completed the 12-item questionnaire online after a 10-minute practice task, and sessions were recorded with their consent." This shows the form only; use my notes. A good section answers who, what, when, where, how many and how the data was analyzed, with every number given exactly. Report changes from the original plan openly, with the reason, rather than writing as if the plan never changed. Do not add procedures, software, versions, settings, tests or sample sizes that are not in my notes, because a methods section that describes work that was not done is a serious error. Do not interpret results here. After the section, list under "Missing for repeatability" each detail a reader would need that my notes do not give, such as recruitment dates, the software version, or how missing data was handled. If a reporting guideline is named, add a short table with the columns Guideline item, Covered (yes or no), Where, for the items that belong in the methods. If my notes contradict each other, such as two different sample sizes, flag it at the top rather than choosing one.
Variables
- {{readers}}
- Who will read the paper, for example "reviewers and readers of an education research journal".
- {{venue}}
- The journal, conference or thesis committee it is going to.
- {{style}}
- The style the venue expects, for example "APA 7th edition, third person".
- {{study_notes}}
- Your notes on what you actually did, step by step, with numbers, dates, tools and any changes from the plan.
- {{guideline}}
- The reporting guideline you must follow, or "none".
- {{ethics}}
- Ethics approval body and reference, and how consent was obtained, or "not applicable".
- {{word_limit}}
- The word limit for the methods section, for example 1,200 words, or "none".
Why it works
- Who it's for. The test is whether another researcher could repeat the study from this section alone.
- What to avoid. No procedures, software, settings or sample sizes beyond your notes, because describing work that was not done is a serious error.
- If unsure. Missing details are listed under "Missing for repeatability" and contradictions in the notes are flagged at the top.