Gemini for Research

Act as a senior research librarian. Produce a deep-research report on the current state of [SUB-FIELD] from 2022 to today. Cover: (1) the 5–7 most cited works, (2) the major theoretical camps and their disagreements, (3) emerging methods, (4) open problems suitable for graduate research, (5) a reading order for a lecturer new to the area. Cite every claim with a working URL. Flag low-confidence claims.

Map the live debates in [TOPIC] over the past 12 months. For each debate: name the position, list 2 representative papers or preprints with links, summarise the strongest argument and the strongest critique in 2 sentences each. End with 3 questions a doctoral student could pursue.

Compile a list of 20 highly relevant, peer-reviewed studies on [TOPIC] from the last [TIME RANGE]. For each entry: full citation, 2-sentence summary of findings, methodological approach, and a 1-5 relevance score to my focus. Sort by relevance. Flag any open-access links.

Across these sources, produce: (1) a 400-word synthesis written for an upper-undergraduate audience, (2) a table of where each author agrees and disagrees on [KEY CONCEPT], (3) 6 Socratic discussion questions, each anchored to specific source passages.

Based only on the uploaded sources, identify 3 questions that none of the authors directly address but several gesture toward. For each gap, quote the closest passage and suggest a study design that would answer it.

Based only on these sources, draft a one-paragraph research problem statement that: (1) opens with the broad scholarly conversation, (2) narrows to the specific tension or inconsistency across the sources, (3) states the gap this project addresses, (4) ends with one sentence on why answering it matters. Anchor every claim to specific source passages with clickable citations. Do not bring in outside sources.

Draft a one-paragraph research problem statement based only on the uploaded NotebookLM sources. Every sentence must end with a clickable citation linking to a specific source passage. No sentence is allowed without a citation. Structure: (1) open with the broad scholarly conversation, (2) narrow to the specific tension or inconsistency, (3) state the gap, (4) end with why it matters. After the paragraph, produce a numbered audit table listing each sentence, the source it cites, and the exact quoted passage. Do not bring in outside sources.

You are a literature-review coach for a lecturer in [FIELD]. When given a draft paragraph, you (1) name the implicit argument in one sentence, (2) flag any citation that is doing too much work, (3) suggest one missing counter-source, (4) rewrite the paragraph in the user's voice. Concise, hedged, no marketing language. Never invent citations. If unsure, ask.

You are a peer reviewer for [SUB-FIELD] methods sections. For any methods text I paste, return: threats to validity (internal, external, construct, statistical), missing pre-registration details, ethics concerns specific to [POPULATION], and one alternative design that would strengthen causal claims. Be terse. Use bullet points.

You help draft responses to peer-reviewer comments for papers in [SUB-FIELD]. For each reviewer comment I paste, return: (1) a classification (agree / partially agree / disagree / out-of-scope), (2) a 3–4 sentence response in a measured academic voice, (3) the exact manuscript change required with section and approximate line, (4) any new citation that would strengthen the response (mark as 'TO VERIFY'. Never assert it exists). Be terse and concrete.

Open this draft introduction in Canvas. Restructure it into the standard funnel: (1) hook tied to a contemporary problem in [FIELD], (2) brief positioning against [PRIOR WORK], (3) the gap, (4) our contribution in 3 sentences, (5) roadmap. Preserve my voice and every citation. Mark any place where I am asserting something the cited source does not support.

I will paste each section of a grant proposal into Canvas. For each, rewrite for a [FUNDER]-style reviewer: tighten the significance statement, surface measurable outcomes, and flag jargon a non-specialist reviewer will miss. Keep my methods unchanged unless I ask.

In Canvas, draft a Discussion section for a paper reporting [KEY FINDING] in [SUB-FIELD]. Structure: (1) restate the finding in one paragraph without overclaiming, (2) situate against the 3 closest prior studies I name, (3) mechanisms, 2 plausible explanations with the evidence for each, (4) limitations (sample, measurement, design), be honest, (5) implications for theory and for next studies. Hedged voice. Flag any sentence that asserts causation from a non-causal design.

I have uploaded my current draft manuscript. Rewrite it for submission to a reputable journal in [FIELD]. Keep the core argument and all cited sources, but: (1) elevate the register to formal academic English, (2) tighten every paragraph to the journal's word limits, (3) ensure the abstract follows the IMRaD structure, (4) replace any colloquial phrasing with discipline-standard terminology, (5) flag any weak claim that needs additional empirical support. Preserve every citation and bibliography entry verbatim; do not add new ones, remove existing ones, or alter their formatting.