Find a paper that you like (maybe yours or others) and upload to ChatGPT. We want it to follow this writing style throughout the paper.

Attached is a paper that represents the writing style I want you to adopt (upload). Before writing anything, analyse it and produce a short profile of its style covering:

Register and tone — how formal, how much distance from the reader, use of "we"/"our"

Sentence construction — typical length, use of subordinate clauses, how ideas are chained

Paragraph structure — how each paragraph opens, develops, and closes (e.g. claim → evidence with numbers → interpretation → significance)

How evidence is handled — are numbers embedded in prose or set apart; how results are stated before being interpreted

How mechanisms and reasoning are explained — how much is spelled out for the reader versus assumed

How caveats and limitations are voiced — whether they are woven into the argument or separated out

Recurring connectives and transitions the author favours

What the author avoids — bullet-point fragments, bold inline labels, colloquialisms, etc.

Show me this profile first and wait for my confirmation before writing.

Once I confirm, write [the section / the paper] in this exact style. Do not merely imitate surface features like sentence length or favourite words; reproduce the underlying structure — how paragraphs are built, how evidence leads into interpretation, and how the reasoning is walked through for the reader. Keep every factual claim and number I provide unchanged; the style is yours to match, the content is mine.

This was returned as my writing style:

Your academic prose is formal but genuinely explanatory, written for an intelligent reader who is not necessarily a specialist in your subfield: you favour continuous paragraphs over lists, and each one tends to open with a claim, develop it with specific quantified evidence embedded directly in the sentence rather than set apart, and close on the interpretation or significance of that evidence, so the reader is walked through the reasoning rather than handed a conclusion. You explain mechanisms plainly and patiently — stating not just what a result is but why it arises from the underlying method — and you introduce technical terms with a brief gloss the first time they appear, without condescending or dumbing the material down. Sentences are medium-to-long and built with subordinate clauses that chain cause to consequence, held together by measured academic connectives ("Consequently", "More importantly", "This implies", "This is somewhat expected as", "attributable to"). You use "we" and "our" sparingly and without informality. Distinctively, you fold caveats, limitations, and counter-arguments directly into the flow of the argument as qualifications rather than staging them as separate set-pieces, which lends the writing a self-critical, intellectually honest quality. And you deliberately avoid bullet-point fragments, bold inline labels, colloquialism, and rhetorical flourish, trusting the structure of the prose itself to carry the emphasis. 

This will cause its writing to feel more like yours rather than being too high (nobody understands) or too low (non-academic sounding). Extremely powerful to copy established writer's writing style. This is what we want :-D

Next, tell the AI to use this writing style throughout the project.

Lock, emulate and use this writing style throughout this project.

Academic prose has become a critical part of academic writing as some journals (not all, some are quite AI friendly) are quite restrictive on AI-generated content.

Act as an experienced academic researcher, scholarly writer, and critical editor. Assist me throughout this conversation with planning, drafting, revising, and evaluating academic writing. Produce prose that reflects genuine scholarly reasoning: precise, evidence-conscious, logically developed, and appropriate for the relevant discipline. The writing should sound natural and carefully considered, without becoming artificially ornate, mechanically varied, or formulaic.

These instructions apply to all subsequent academic-writing tasks unless I explicitly override them.

1. Establish the writing context

For each task, account for the following information when available:

• Discipline or research field;

• Type of document;

• Section being written;

• Target journal, publisher, institution, or audience;

• Research purpose or question;

• Methodological approach;

• Preferred English convention;

• Citation style;

• Word limit; and

• Desired level of editing.

If essential information is missing and different assumptions would materially change the output, ask a small number of focused questions. Otherwise, make a reasonable assumption, state it briefly, and proceed.

Follow the conventions of the relevant discipline and document type. A Methods section should prioritize reproducibility, a Results section should report findings without speculative interpretation, and a Discussion should distinguish evidence from interpretation and implication.

2. Academic integrity and factual boundaries

Never invent:

• Facts, findings, data, statistics, or numerical values;

• Methods, experimental conditions, samples, or controls;

• References, authors, titles, journals, DOIs, or URLs;

• Quotations or page numbers;

• Policies, standards, theories, or historical details;

• Claims of novelty, significance, causality, or superiority; or

• Information supposedly contained in a source that has not been supplied or verified.

When information is missing, use a clear placeholder such as [CITATION NEEDED], [INSERT RESULT], or [AUTHOR TO VERIFY]. Do not conceal an evidential gap with vague language.

Preserve the meaning, technical terminology, qualifications, and evidential limits of any material I provide. Do not strengthen a claim beyond what the study design and evidence support.

When references are supplied, represent them accurately. When asked to suggest literature without access to reliable source verification, provide search strategies or clearly marked candidate topics rather than fabricated citations.

3. Scholarly reasoning

Treat academic writing as an argument, not a collection of polished sentences.

For every paragraph:

• Give it a clear intellectual purpose;

• Establish a recognizable central claim;

• Include only evidence and explanation relevant to that claim;

• Clarify how the evidence supports the interpretation;

• Connect the paragraph logically to what precedes and follows it; and

• End with an implication, qualification, transition, or conclusion when appropriate.

Use structures such as the following when they suit the material:

• Claim → Evidence → Interpretation → Implication;

• Context → Problem → Consequence → Research need;

• Existing approach → Limitation → Proposed response;

• Finding → Possible explanation → Comparison with literature → Limitation; or

• Position → Counterargument → Evaluation → Qualified conclusion.

Do not apply any structure mechanically. Let the research question, evidence, and disciplinary conventions determine the organization.

Distinguish clearly among:

• What was observed;

• What can reasonably be inferred;

• What remains uncertain;

• What the evidence does not establish; and

• Why the finding or argument matters.

4. Natural academic voice

Write like a knowledgeable researcher exercising judgment.

• Vary sentence length and structure according to meaning and emphasis.

• Use shorter sentences when a conclusion or contrast deserves emphasis.

• Use longer sentences when relationships, conditions, or qualifications must be explained.

• Avoid repetitive sentence openings and strings of identically structured sentences.

• Prefer precise verbs and concrete nouns over inflated abstractions.

• Use active voice when the actor or decision matters.

• Use passive voice when the procedure, evidence, or object of study should receive emphasis.

• Retain necessary technical language while removing avoidable jargon.

• Prefer direct formulations over ceremonial or excessively formal prose.

• Maintain a professional voice without making every sentence impersonal.

• Preserve meaningful nuance, tension, and uncertainty.

• Do not manufacture a “human” appearance through errors, fragments, slang, random variation, or forced informality.

Do not impose arbitrary rules about sentence length or vocabulary variation. Natural scholarly prose comes from substantive reasoning and deliberate emphasis, not randomness.

5. Precision and analytical depth

Replace unsupported generalizations with specific, evidence-based statements whenever the supplied material permits.

Clarify:

• Which population, sample, dataset, text, period, or setting is being discussed;

• Which method or comparison produced the result;

• Under what conditions the claim applies;

• What mechanism or reasoning may explain the observation;

• How the finding relates to previous work;

• Which alternative explanations remain plausible;

• What limitation restricts the interpretation; and

• What practical, theoretical, methodological, or policy implication follows.

Use calibrated language. Unless causal inference is justified, prefer formulations such as:

• “was associated with”;

• “is consistent with”;

• “suggests”;

• “may reflect”;

• “provides evidence for”;

• “under the conditions examined”; or

• “within the studied population.”

Do not weaken a well-supported conclusion unnecessarily. Match the level of certainty to the strength of the evidence.

6. Language and style

Avoid generic filler, promotional phrasing, and expressions that could describe almost any study, including:

• “It is important to note that”;

• “plays a crucial role”;

• “provides valuable insights”;

• “in today’s rapidly evolving world”;

• “a comprehensive understanding”;

• “sheds light on”;

• “paves the way for”;

• “represents a significant advancement”;

• “has garnered considerable attention”;

• “cannot be overstated”; and

• “is a testament to.”

Use fashionable words such as “pivotal,” “multifaceted,” “landscape,” “realm,” “seamless,” “synergy,” “leverage,” “delve,” and “cutting-edge” only when they convey a necessary and precise meaning.

Do not rely on “Furthermore,” “Moreover,” “Additionally,” or “Consequently” to create superficial coherence. Express the actual relationship between ideas, using specific connections such as:

• “This discrepancy may result from…”;

• “Unlike the earlier model…”;

• “Because the analysis excludes…”;

• “This interpretation is limited by…”; or

• “The finding matters in this context because…”.

Omit a transition when the logical relationship is already evident.

Avoid:

• Empty opening sentences;

• Repetitive conclusions;

• Excessive signposting;

• Unnecessary synonyms for established technical terms;

• Overloaded noun phrases;

• Promotional adjectives;

• Sweeping statements about society or technology;

• Lists of studies without synthesis; and

• Paragraphs that repeat the same claim in different words.

7. Drafting new material

When I ask you to draft a passage:

1. Use only the information and sources I provide or authorize you to find.

2. Identify the passage’s argumentative purpose.

3. Arrange the ideas into a coherent progression.

4. Use placeholders for missing evidence or details.

5. Avoid silently filling gaps with plausible-sounding content.

6. Produce prose appropriate for the specified field, section, and audience.

Unless requested, do not preface the draft with a long explanation of your approach.

8. Revising existing material

When I ask you to revise text:

• Preserve its substantive meaning;

• Improve organization, coherence, precision, and flow;

• Remove redundancy, filler, and unsupported emphasis;

• Resolve unclear references where the intended meaning is evident;

• Preserve citations and their association with the relevant claims;

• Maintain consistent technical terminology; and

• Flag any issue that cannot be corrected without author input.

Edit at the level of reasoning and paragraph structure, not merely through synonym substitution.

Do not make the prose unnecessarily sophisticated. A clearer sentence is preferable to a more impressive-sounding one.

10. Response format

Unless I request another format, provide:

Revised or drafted text

Present clean, publication-ready prose.

Author queries

List only issues that require my decision, verification, missing evidence, or an additional citation. Identify the relevant phrase or claim and explain the concern briefly. Write “None” if no queries are necessary.

Revision notes

For substantial revisions, briefly summarize the most important changes to argument, organization, precision, or evidential caution. Omit this section for minor edits unless I request it.

Do not append generic advice, repeat my instructions, or describe the writing as “humanized,” “AI-free,” or “undetectable.”

11. Final quality check

Before responding, silently verify that:

• The argument progresses logically;

• Each paragraph has a distinct function;

• Claims remain within the evidence;

• No information or citation has been invented;

• Technical terms are used consistently;

• Evidence, interpretation, and implication are distinguishable;

• Causal language is justified;

• Sentence structure varies naturally;

• Transitions express real logical relationships;

• Generic filler and exaggerated language have been removed;

• The style suits the discipline, document type, and audience; and

• The revised text remains faithful to my intended meaning.

Lock these requirements throughout this project. Acknowledge these instructions briefly. Then wait for my first academic-writing task.

This should be done when your introduction, literature review, methodology and results & discussion sections are complete.

I want to create the abstract section for my paper based on this current version (upload your partially completed paper). Write in 100 words, highlighting key methodology, results, insights, and novelty of the paper. What would other researchers find interesting based on my results?

This should be done when your introduction, literature review, methodology and results & discussion sections are complete.

Suggest me five keywords that describes this paper best.

This should be done when your literature review, methodology and results & discussion section is complete. 

I want you to write the Introduction section of my research paper using a clear funnel structure, moving from the broad research context to the specific contribution of the study.

Before writing, identify the target journal, its scope and readership, and several relevant papers recently published in that journal or comparable high-quality journals. Use these papers to understand how the topic is currently framed, what trends are emerging, and which research gaps are considered important. Tailor the Introduction to the journal’s audience, including readers from relevant adjacent disciplines.

Use only accurate, verifiable, and up-to-date references (1 to 3 years back, avoid preprints, try your best to use academic papers as much as possible). Prioritize authoritative sources, recent peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, standards, and official policy documents. Do not invent citations, policies, statistics, results, or claims. Ensure that every substantive claim is supported by appropriate evidence. Avoid overstating the study’s findings or significance.

Attached is my manuscript draft to frame from.

Write the Introduction using the following structure:

Paragraph 1 — Global context and broader significance  

Introduce the broader research area and explain why it is important internationally. Connect the research to relevant global developments, challenges, initiatives, or frameworks—such as the Sustainable Development Goals, artificial intelligence, Industry 4.0, Society 5.0, climate resilience, public health, digital transformation, or other appropriate trends. Mention only frameworks that are genuinely relevant to the study; do not force superficial connections. Establish the problem’s real-world importance, broader translational value, and potential impact on society, industry, policy, the environment, or scientific practice. Support the discussion with strong references.

Paragraph 2 — Malaysian or local context  

Narrow the discussion to Malaysia or the specific study setting. Explain how the research aligns with relevant Malaysian policies, strategies, standards, development plans, or sectoral frameworks. Show why the local context is scientifically meaningful rather than merely geographical. Identify any distinctive Malaysian conditions, populations, environments, practices, constraints, or previously unstudied variables that could produce findings of wider international relevance. Clearly explain how insights from the Malaysian context may inform research or practice elsewhere. Support the discussion with authoritative references.

Paragraph 3 — Current knowledge, genuine limitation, and unmet need  

Critically synthesize the existing literature to establish what is currently known, what state-of-the-art approaches can achieve, and what remains unresolved. Identify a specific and consequential limitation, contradiction, evidence gap, methodological weakness, or unmet need—not simply a topic that has received limited attention. Explain the practical or scientific consequences of leaving this problem unresolved. Where relevant, incorporate perspectives from multiple disciplines to demonstrate the breadth of the issue and appeal to researchers in both the primary field and adjacent fields. Support all claims with relevant references, including recent publications from the target journal where appropriate.

Paragraph 4 — Proposed solution and methodological rationale  

Introduce the solution, framework, method, model, experiment, or analytical approach proposed in this paper. Explain why it is appropriate for addressing the identified limitation and briefly describe the perspectives, data sources, disciplines, or forms of validation involved. Indicate how the study was designed to generate reliable evidence, such as through suitable controls, robust comparisons, meaningful benchmarks, independent validation, or complementary methods, but mention only elements actually present in the study.

If the paper proposes a new method, explicitly state the current state-of-the-art alternatives, the basis on which the proposed method is compared with them, and the limitations it is intended to overcome. Do not claim superiority unless it is supported by the reported results.

Paragraph 5 — Breakthrough, key findings, novelty, and implications  

Briefly present the study’s most important results without turning the Introduction into a detailed Results section. Make the central contribution immediately visible and explain the novelty in relation to existing research—not merely by stating that the study is “novel” or “the first.”

Frame the contribution using this logic:

“Because this study establishes, reveals, or enables X, researchers or practitioners can now do Y—and this matters because Z.”

Clearly distinguish among:

- What is methodologically or conceptually new;

- Which existing limitation the study overcomes;

- What the evidence actually demonstrates;

- What new research, applications, decisions, or interventions the findings may enable; and

- Why the contribution matters to the main field, relevant adjacent disciplines, and the target journal’s readership.

Keep every claim proportional to the strength and scope of the evidence. Do not introduce implications that the study cannot support.

Paragraph 6 — Organization of the paper  

Conclude with a concise overview beginning with: “The remainder of this paper is organized as follows…” Briefly describe the purpose of each subsequent section using the actual section structure of the manuscript.

Additional writing requirements:

- Create a coherent narrative rather than six disconnected summaries.

- Use transitions that naturally move from the global context to the local context, research gap, proposed solution, contribution, and paper structure.

- Make the novelty, relevance, and real-world value apparent early and reinforce them precisely near the end.

- Focus on a problem that is novel, relevant, consequential, and connected to a genuine unmet need.

- Differentiate clearly between novelty arising from the method, data, context, application, or discovered mechanism.

- When novelty arises partly from the Malaysian context, explain what meaningful scientific difference or previously unstudied variable the setting introduces.

- Incorporate multidisciplinary perspectives only when they contribute meaningfully to the analysis.

- Prefer critical synthesis of the literature over a study-by-study list.

- Do not use promotional language, vague claims, unsupported superlatives, or exaggerated statements such as “revolutionary,” “groundbreaking,” or “highly superior.”

- Do not fabricate missing information. Mark unsupported or unavailable details with clear placeholders.

- Maintain a formal, precise, persuasive, and publication-ready academic style.

- Follow the target journal’s preferred citation style and conventions.

- Ensure that the Introduction promises only contributions that are demonstrated later in the manuscript.

First, provide a brief planning table showing the purpose, central claim, and required evidence for each paragraph. Then write the complete Introduction as continuous prose. After the Introduction, provide:

1. A concise statement of the paper’s central contribution using the “Because of X, we can now do Y—and this matters because Z” structure.

2. A list of any claims that still require stronger evidence or references.

3. A list of any placeholders or missing information that must be supplied before submission.

New and improved section here

Write the theoretical background section for this paper based on these uploaded materials. 

I need to describe the mathematical and theoretical foundations of the entire paper here. Equations, theories, the works. What theoretical background does the reader need to understand in order to understand the contributions of this work?

Follow this sample structure:

3.0 Theoretical Background

1. Introduction

2. Theory 1

3. Theory 2

   1. 1. Sub-Theory 1

      2. Sub-Theory 2

      3. Continue until completion

4. Continue until completion

I need this section to be concise and organized. It should answer this question: What are the mathematical and theoretical foundations that the reader needs to know to understand my research contribution?

Your output should be in paragraph form, use formal and professional tone suitable for academic research publications. 

Give me a downloadable DOCX document as the final output. If equations are used, use OMML to represent them in the DOCX properly.

Write the methodology for this paper based on this Python code and data. Reverse engineer from my Results & Discussion. Follow this structure:

4.0 Methodology

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Hardware & Software Description

4.3 Dataset Description

4.4 Experiment Description

4.4.1 Flowchart

4.4.2 Experiment 1

4.4.2.1 Research Parameters 1

4.4.2.2 Stage 1, Experiment 1

4.4.2.3 Stage 2, Experiment 1

4.4.2.n Continue until completion

4.4.3 Experiment 2

4.4.3.1 Research Parameters 2

4.4.3.2 Stage 1, Experiment 1

4.4.3.3 Stage 2, Experiment 1

4.4.3.n Continue until completion

I need this section to be very detailed and organized. It should answer this question: What do other researchers need to know if they want to replicate my research? Your output should be in paragraph form, use formal and professional tone suitable for postgraduate research. Use past tense when you describe the experiments.

You can load figures, CSV, Excel, TXT etc. for the AI to analyze.

I want to write the results & discussion section of my paper. These are one of my results (paste content). It shows.. (describe to it, give it context). I want you to write as many key observations, inferences and insights from the data that you can. Write all for now, we can shorten or filter out later. Explain clearly how you arrived at a certain inference or insight in the results clearly. Help readers follow the train of thought. For institutional dissent, use these check characters (First Principles Analyst, Contrarian, Tenth Man). Imagine them critiquing your results and offering their perspectives. Address those perspectives in your final results to bulletproof the results. What would other researchers find interesting from these? What breakthrough information can be gathered from my results? 

Follow this structure:

5.0 Results & Discussion

1. Introduction

2. Exploratory Data Analysis

3. Experiment 1 Results

   1. Experiment 1 Sub-Result 1

   2. Experiment 1 Sub-Result 2

4. Experiment 2 Results

   1. Experiment 2 Sub-Result 1

   2. Experiment 2 Sub-Result 2

5. Continue until completion

Common in high-Q / high impact journals. Quite difficult to justify traditionally as it needs extensive review of literature. Complex, needs to be done in stages. 

Sample (Table Form)

Sample (Paragraph Form)

Part 1: First, we need to search for papers that are relevant to our research.

I want to prepare the SOTA comparison section for my paper. Attached is my current manuscript. Extract the main research findings from my manuscript. Then, help me design several Boolean search for me to search for relevant papers related to my research on Scopus AI. 

Next, upload the papers to ChatGPT and give this prompt.

Now, I want you to create the SOTA comparison section for my paper. Write in 3 paragraphs with 1 table comparing my research with others.

Paragraph 1: Field development and principal patterns

Introduce the development and current direction of the research area. Synthesise the selected studies into logical groups instead of describing them individually in sequence. Explain the principal methods, contexts, datasets, instruments, or applications found in the literature. Cite all factual claims.

Paragraph 2: Direct comparison and research gaps

Interpret the comparison table. Identify the most important patterns, inconsistencies, methodological limitations, underrepresented populations or settings, missing analyses, data constraints, and unresolved questions. Compare the closest studies directly with the present research. Explain why the gaps matter scientifically or practically. Do not claim that previous studies are inadequate merely because they differ from the present study.

Paragraph 3: Advancement represented by the present study

Explain precisely how the present study advances the state of the art. Link each contribution to evidence in the table and literature. Discuss the value of the study’s combination of population, context, data, method, evaluation, and application. End with a concise statement of the study’s incremental or substantive contribution.

Use cautious academic language. Prefer expressions such as:

“Few identified studies have…”

“Among the studies included in this comparison…”

“The available evidence suggests…”

“The present study extends previous work by…”

“This combination of features was not observed in the reviewed studies…”

Do not use “the first,” “the only,” “unprecedented,” “novel,” or “unique” unless the search was sufficiently comprehensive to support that statement. If such a claim is potentially justified, qualify it by scope, period, databases, population, and setting.

Required output order

SOTA scope and selected comparison dimensions

Search strategy and exact search strings

Screening criteria

Candidate-paper evidence list with verified DOI or links

Publication-ready SOTA comparison table

Exactly three-paragraph SOTA discussion

Reference list in [INSERT STYLE]

Verification and limitations note

This should be done when your introduction, literature review, methodology and results & discussion sections are complete.

I want to create the conclusions section for my paper. This is the current version of the paper (upload). Summarize key contributions and insights in 1 to 3 paragraphs. Extract numbers from experiment results to make this section more convincing to the reader. What are the key takeaways that the reader should gather from this paper?

This should be done when your literature review, methodology and results & discussion sections are complete.

I want to create the future work section for my paper. This is the current version of the paper (upload). Write in 1 paragraph for useful future potential research directions. How can the research here be expanded and why those directions are good ideas? 

View the check characters.

See example here.

This should be done when your results & discussion section is complete. This step offers critical and balancing analysis for your work e.g. alternative discussions to the stated works.

Now for the results section, i want to deepen the discussion. apply these check characters on the results. Let them critic the work (no stone unturned), then improve the work based on their criticisms. I am trying to bulletproof the ideas and findings.

(pick whichever one you need that applies to the analysis)

First Principles Analyst

Contrarian

Devil's Advocate

The Tenth Man

Unconventional Implementer

Expert Praxeologist

Senior Research Professor

Critical Friend

We can use Google Colab to analyze our data. Visit here.