Stage 4 / Prompt Toolkit

STAGE 4 · REFINE · HANDS-ON PROMPT BANK

Stage 4 Prompt Toolkit

Copyable prompts for argument review, PRISMA compliance, references, language, journal matching and submission. Replace bracketed fields, check every suggestion against your evidence and record only verified outputs in the Stage 4 worksheets.

Open Stage 4 workspace →Stage 4 overview Gemini Notebook guide

Authors remain responsible for every word. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Do not upload unpublished manuscripts or copyrighted full texts unless permitted. Disclose AI assistance as required by the target journal.

How to use the prompts

Open the matching step and gather your verified inputs (matrix, themes, draft text).
Replace every bracketed field; share only material you are permitted to process.
Ask for evidence and uncertainty; compare the output with your sources.
Edit the output in your own words and record what you used in the AI-assistance log.

Use with Step 1

1 · Check structure and argument

Build an RQ alignment mapReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Read the manuscript below and build an alignment map for each research question: where it is introduced, where it is answered in Results, where it is interpreted in Discussion, and where it appears in the Conclusion.

Research questions: [paste]
Manuscript (or section headings with first sentences of each paragraph): [paste]

Return a table with section/paragraph references. Flag any RQ that is not explicitly answered, and any Results or Discussion content that does not relate to an RQ. Do not rewrite the text.

Sharpen the contribution statementReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Here is my current contribution statement and a summary of the closest existing reviews. Suggest three alternative contribution statements (max. 2 sentences each) that are specific, accurate and supported by my findings.

Current statement: [paste]
Scope of my review (years, sources, N studies): [paste]
Principal findings: [paste]
Closest prior reviews and their scope (from my notes): [paste]

Avoid superlatives such as “first” or “comprehensive” unless I have evidence for them.

Use with Step 2

2 · Check PRISMA 2020 reporting

Locate PRISMA items in my manuscriptReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Check the manuscript text below against the PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items). For each item, quote the sentence(s) that report it and give the section heading. If an item is missing or only partly reported, say so and describe what is missing.

Manuscript text: [paste]

Return a table: item number, item name, status (reported / partial / missing / possibly not applicable), location, and what to add. I will verify every location myself.

Check the abstract against PRISMA for AbstractsReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Check this abstract against the 12 items of the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. Indicate which items are present, partial or missing, and suggest a revised abstract within [word limit] words that uses only information already in the abstract or provided below.

Abstract: [paste]
Extra details (registration, funding, number of studies): [paste]

Use with Step 3

3 · Verify references and citations

Cross-check in-text citations and reference listReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Compare the in-text citations and the reference list below. List: citations with no matching reference, references never cited in the text, inconsistent author/year spellings, and references missing a DOI.

In-text citations (or manuscript text): [paste]
Reference list: [paste]

Do not add or correct bibliographic details from memory — only report mismatches for me to verify in my reference manager.

Check citations support the claimsReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

For each sentence below, I have pasted the relevant passage from the cited source. Indicate whether the source passage supports the claim fully, partially or not at all, and explain briefly.

Sentence — citation — source passage: [paste]

Do not assess sources I have not provided.

Use with Step 4

4 · Improve language and clarity

Edit for clarity without changing meaningReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Edit the paragraph below for clarity, concision and formal academic English. Do not change technical meaning, numbers, citations or the strength of claims. Show the revised paragraph, then a list of the changes made and why.

Paragraph: [paste]
Preferred terminology: [paste list]

Detect over-claiming and inconsistent termsReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Review the section below for (1) claims stronger than the evidence described, (2) inconsistent terminology or abbreviations, and (3) tense inconsistency.

Section: [paste]
Evidence base description (N studies, designs): [paste]

Return a table: original phrase, issue type, suggested alternative. Do not rewrite the whole section.

Use with Step 5

5 · Match the manuscript to journals

Compare shortlisted journalsReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Help me compare the journals below for my systematic review. I have collected the information myself from official journal pages and indexing databases.

Manuscript title and abstract: [paste]
Journal data (name, aims & scope text, accepts reviews?, indexing, quartile, APC, time to first decision): [paste]

Return a comparison table and a ranked recommendation with reasons based only on the data provided. Do not supply metrics, indexing status or APCs from memory; if something is missing, mark it “to verify”.

Assess scope fitReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Compare my abstract with the aims and scope text of the target journal. Identify which parts of the scope my manuscript fits, any mismatch, and how I could frame the contribution in the cover letter so that it reflects the journal’s readership — without changing the findings.

My abstract: [paste]
Journal aims and scope: [paste]

Use with Step 6

6 · Meet author guidelines and declarations

Turn author guidelines into a checklistReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Convert the guide for authors below into a checklist for a review article. Include: article type and length, abstract format, keywords, heading structure, reference style, figure/table requirements, supplementary files, declarations and any reporting-guideline requirement.

Guide for authors text: [paste]

Return a checklist table: requirement, exact wording or value, where to check it in my manuscript.

Draft the declarationsReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Draft declaration statements using only the facts below, in the style commonly required by journals. Keep each statement short.

Funding: [paste]
Competing interests: [paste]
Author contributions (names and CRediT roles): [paste]
Data availability (what, where, DOI): [paste]
Generative AI use (tool, version, purpose, how verified): [paste]
Protocol registration: [paste]

Insert [CHECK] where information is incomplete.

Use with Step 7

7 · Prepare the submission package

Draft a cover letterReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Draft a cover letter (max. 350 words) to the editor of [journal] for a systematic review titled “[title]”.

Editor name: [name]
Main contribution (2 sentences): [paste]
Why it fits the journal’s scope: [paste]
Key numbers (N studies, years, sources): [paste]
Declarations to confirm: originality, not under consideration elsewhere, all authors approved, [others].

Use a professional, concise tone. Do not exaggerate novelty.

Write highlightsReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

Write 3–5 highlights for my systematic review, each under 85 characters including spaces, stating findings rather than activities.

Principal findings: [paste]

Use only these findings and keep the strength of each claim unchanged.

Plan a response to reviewersReplace the bracketed fields and verify all output against your evidence.View prompt +

Copy and replace the bracketed fields

I received the reviewer comments below. Organise them into a response table: comment number, summary of the comment, type (major/minor; methodological/reporting/language), proposed action, and location of change.

Reviewer comments: [paste]

Do not write the final responses or agree to changes on my behalf; flag comments where I may need to respectfully disagree and explain why.

Use with any AI-assisted Stage 4 task

AI Output Verification Checklist

Tick items as you work; this checklist is not saved.

Evidence traceableEvery claim about the literature is linked to an included study and an evidence location.No invented sourcesEvery citation, number and quotation was checked against the original source.Meaning preservedEdits did not change technical meaning, numbers or the strength of claims.Human judgement retainedThemes, gaps, journal choice and responses were decided by the authors.Use disclosedAI assistance is logged and will be disclosed according to the journal’s policy.Privacy consideredOnly content permitted by policy and copyright was entered into the AI service.

An AI response is a draft aid, never a source to cite.

Responsible-use instruction

Add this to a prompt when you need stronger safeguards:

Use only the information I provide. Separate direct evidence from suggestions. Do not invent citations, study IDs, counts, quotations or page numbers. If information is missing, state “not reported” or ask me. Do not make final analytical or authorship decisions; I will verify and decide.

Use only the information I provide. Separate direct evidence from suggestions. Do not invent citations, study IDs, counts, quotations or page numbers. If information is missing, state “not reported” or ask me. Do not make final analytical or authorship decisions; I will verify and decide.

Start Stage 4 Step 1 →Open Stage 4 Portfolio