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)

Research questions are clear and answerable
Gap in literature identified
Methodology matches questions
No absolute claims without evidence
All citations present and correct
Word count within range (±10%)

Common Issues to Check

Vague research questions
Literature review as list, not synthesis
Methodology-question mismatch
Overstated significance
Missing or inconsistent citations
Informal language
Lack of hedging
Poor transitions
Undefined abbreviations
Unrealistic timeline
Excessive bullet points instead of flowing prose
Insufficient references (must be ≥40)
Missing figure suggestions
Appendix included (should not have appendix)