# Quality Checklist for Research Proposals

Use this checklist to verify the quality of generated research proposals.

---

## Structure Verification

### Overall Document
- [ ] Title is concise (10-15 words) and informative
- [ ] All required sections present
- [ ] Sections in logical order
- [ ] Word counts within specified ranges
- [ ] Consistent formatting throughout
- [ ] Page numbers included (if applicable)

### Section Completeness

#### Abstract (150-300 words)
- [ ] Background/context provided
- [ ] Research problem clearly stated
- [ ] Objectives/questions articulated
- [ ] Methodology briefly described
- [ ] Expected significance mentioned
- [ ] No citations in abstract
- [ ] No undefined abbreviations

#### Introduction (500-800 words)
- [ ] Background establishes context
- [ ] Problem statement is specific
- [ ] Research questions/objectives clear
- [ ] Scope defined appropriately
- [ ] Logical flow from broad to specific

#### Literature Review (500-1000 words)
- [ ] Theoretical framework established
- [ ] Current research state summarized
- [ ] Research gap clearly identified
- [ ] Study positioned within literature
- [ ] Synthesis, not just summary
- [ ] Recent sources included (last 5 years)

#### Methodology (500-800 words)
- [ ] Research design justified
- [ ] Data collection methods described
- [ ] Analysis approach explained
- [ ] Limitations acknowledged
- [ ] Ethical considerations addressed (if applicable)

#### Timeline (200-300 words)
- [ ] Major phases identified
- [ ] Milestones specified
- [ ] Timeline realistic for PhD duration
- [ ] Dependencies considered

#### Significance (200-400 words)
- [ ] Theoretical contributions stated
- [ ] Practical implications described
- [ ] Broader impact discussed
- [ ] Claims appropriately hedged

#### References
- [ ] **Minimum 40 citations** for PhD proposal
- [ ] Citation format consistent
- [ ] Mix of foundational and recent works (~40% classic, ~60% recent 5 years)
- [ ] All in-text citations have matching references
- [ ] No orphan references (cited but not referenced)
- [ ] Balance across different research groups/institutions

#### Figures (3-5 suggested)
- [ ] Figure suggestions included at appropriate locations
- [ ] Each suggestion includes: title, content description, style recommendation
- [ ] Figures distributed across sections (Introduction, Methodology, Timeline)
- [ ] No figure in Abstract
- [ ] Each figure serves clear communicative purpose

---

## Content Quality

### Research Design
- [ ] Research questions are answerable
- [ ] Questions align with methodology
- [ ] Scope achievable within PhD timeframe
- [ ] Original contribution evident
- [ ] Builds on existing research appropriately

### Argumentation
- [ ] Claims supported by evidence
- [ ] Logic is sound and traceable
- [ ] Counterarguments acknowledged
- [ ] Gap justifies proposed research
- [ ] Conclusions follow from premises

### Literature Engagement
- [ ] Key works in field cited
- [ ] Seminal papers included
- [ ] Recent developments covered
- [ ] Critical analysis present
- [ ] Theoretical framework appropriate

### Methodology Rigor
- [ ] Methods match research questions
- [ ] Data collection feasible
- [ ] Analysis approach appropriate
- [ ] Validity/reliability addressed
- [ ] Limitations honestly stated

---

## Academic Writing Quality

### Writing Style (CRITICAL)
- [ ] **Prose-based writing** - content flows as connected paragraphs
- [ ] **Minimal bullet points** - lists used ONLY where truly necessary
- [ ] Appropriate list usage limited to: research questions, timeline milestones, technical specs
- [ ] No point-by-point enumeration of ideas that should be narrated
- [ ] Smooth transitions between ideas within paragraphs
- [ ] **No appendix sections** - all content in main body

### Language and Tone
- [ ] Formal academic register
- [ ] No colloquialisms or slang
- [ ] Consistent tense usage
- [ ] Appropriate voice (active/passive)
- [ ] Technical terms defined

### Hedging
- [ ] No absolute claims without evidence
- [ ] Modal verbs used appropriately (may, might, could)
- [ ] Tentative language for predictions
- [ ] Phrases like "suggests," "indicates" for findings
- [ ] No overstatement of significance

### Sentence Structure
- [ ] Topic sentences clear
- [ ] Varied sentence length
- [ ] Complex ideas broken down
- [ ] No run-on sentences
- [ ] No sentence fragments

### Paragraph Structure
- [ ] One main idea per paragraph
- [ ] 4-8 sentences typical length
- [ ] Clear topic sentence
- [ ] Supporting evidence present
- [ ] Smooth transitions

### Transitions
- [ ] Logical flow between paragraphs
- [ ] Appropriate connectors used
- [ ] Signposting for reader
- [ ] No abrupt topic changes
- [ ] Section transitions explicit

---

## Technical Accuracy

### Citations
- [ ] Format matches discipline standard (APA/MLA/Chicago)
- [ ] In-text citations correct
- [ ] Reference list complete
- [ ] DOIs/URLs included where available
- [ ] Author names accurate

### Abbreviations and Terms
- [ ] All abbreviations defined at first use
- [ ] Acronyms used consistently
- [ ] Technical terms explained
- [ ] Discipline-specific jargon appropriate
- [ ] No unexplained symbols

### Numbers and Data
- [ ] Consistent number formatting
- [ ] Units specified correctly
- [ ] Statistics reported properly
- [ ] Percentages calculated correctly
- [ ] Sample sizes justified

### Formatting
- [ ] Heading hierarchy consistent
- [ ] Font and spacing uniform
- [ ] Lists formatted properly
- [ ] Tables/figures labeled (if any)
- [ ] Markdown syntax correct

---

## Domain-Specific Checks

### STEM Proposals
- [ ] Hypotheses specific and testable
- [ ] Variables operationally defined
- [ ] Equipment/software specified
- [ ] Protocols detailed
- [ ] Validation approach described
- [ ] Preliminary data included (if applicable)
- [ ] Reproducibility considered

### Humanities Proposals
- [ ] Central argument clear
- [ ] Theoretical sophistication demonstrated
- [ ] Primary sources identified
- [ ] Archive/field access addressed
- [ ] Chapter outline provided
- [ ] Language requirements noted
- [ ] Interpretive framework justified

### Social Sciences Proposals
- [ ] Research questions theory-linked
- [ ] Sampling strategy justified
- [ ] Instruments described
- [ ] Ethics approval pathway identified
- [ ] Mixed methods rationale (if applicable)
- [ ] Generalizability discussed
- [ ] Practical significance clear

---

## Language-Specific Checks

### English Proposals
- [ ] British/American English consistent
- [ ] Grammar correct
- [ ] Spelling accurate
- [ ] Punctuation proper
- [ ] Articles (a/an/the) used correctly
- [ ] Subject-verb agreement

### Chinese Proposals (中文)
- [ ] 学术语体规范
- [ ] 无口语化表达
- [ ] 标点符号正确
- [ ] 适当使用连接词
- [ ] Hedging 表达适当
- [ ] 引用格式符合 GB/T 7714

---

## Final Review

### Coherence
- [ ] Title matches content
- [ ] Abstract summarizes accurately
- [ ] Research questions answered by methodology
- [ ] Timeline matches scope
- [ ] Significance matches contributions

### Completeness
- [ ] All sections address their purpose
- [ ] No placeholder text remaining
- [ ] All [brackets] filled in
- [ ] No "TBD" or similar markers
- [ ] No missing references

### Readability
- [ ] Clear for intended audience
- [ ] Jargon explained or minimized
- [ ] Logical progression
- [ ] Key points emphasized
- [ ] Conclusion satisfying

### Professionalism
- [ ] Free of typos
- [ ] Consistent formatting
- [ ] Appropriate length
- [ ] Citations complete
- [ ] Ready for submission

---

## Scoring Guide

### Rating Scale
- **Excellent (5)**: Meets all criteria, publication-ready quality
- **Good (4)**: Minor improvements needed
- **Satisfactory (3)**: Several areas need attention
- **Needs Work (2)**: Major revisions required
- **Inadequate (1)**: Fundamental issues present

### Section Weights

| Section | Weight |
|---------|--------|
| Research Questions | 15% |
| Literature Review | 20% |
| Methodology | 25% |
| Academic Writing | 20% |
| Overall Coherence | 10% |
| Technical Accuracy | 10% |

### Minimum Standards
- No section rated below 3
- Overall weighted average ≥ 3.5
- No critical errors in citations or methodology
- Appropriate hedging throughout

---

## Quick Reference

### Critical Requirements (Must Pass)
1. Research questions are clear and answerable
2. Gap in literature identified
3. Methodology matches questions
4. No absolute claims without evidence
5. All citations present and correct
6. Word count within range (±10%)

### Common Issues to Check
1. Vague research questions
2. Literature review as list, not synthesis
3. Methodology-question mismatch
4. Overstated significance
5. Missing or inconsistent citations
6. Informal language
7. Lack of hedging
8. Poor transitions
9. Undefined abbreviations
10. Unrealistic timeline
11. **Excessive bullet points** instead of flowing prose
12. **Insufficient references** (must be ≥40)
13. **Missing figure suggestions**
14. **Appendix included** (should not have appendix)
