Nature Polishing

Nature-Style Academic Polishing

Use this skill to improve scientific writing at two levels:

• main strategy: paper architecture, published-article patterns, section logic, reader workflow, evidence thresholds, and ethics
• reference support: reusable phrase families, move patterns, transitions, and style checks

The main strategy should come from the course notes in Chapter1-Week1-7 and the curated article-pattern reference. The wording layer should come from Academic Phrasebank.

Default stance

• Language serves argument. Do not polish sentences while leaving the reasoning broken.
• Write with empathy for the reader: relevance first, then novelty, then trust, then reuse, then meaning.
• There should be no mystery for the writer, but there may be one for the reader.
• Do not invent data, references, mechanisms, or novelty claims.
• Do not let AI draft the paper's core scientific argument from scratch.
• If the draft is Chinese or structurally rough, reconstruct the logic first and the prose second.
• Avoid em dashes in polished output by default. Prefer commas, parentheses, or full stops. Use colons sparingly unless the user explicitly asks to preserve dash-based punctuation or wants a colon-led style.

Mined writing memory

For academic prose, check the active installed skills/ml-paper-writing/references/knowledge/paper-miner-writing-memory.md under the current client's skill home. Use only source-attributed entries that fit the section and venue, alongside this skill's curated references. Treat them as optional style and structure examples. Preserve the author's claims and evidence, follow current journal instructions, and do not copy source phrasing. If the memory has no relevant entries, continue without it.

When to open extra files

These files are reference support. Use them after the section's rhetorical job is clear.

Core architecture

1. Identify the paper type first

Before editing, determine what kind of paper or section this is.

• Research paper: the reader asks why the phenomenon matters, what was done, what was found, and what it means.
• Methods paper: the reader asks whether the method works, whether it is reproducible, and whether it is better under a fair comparison.
• Hypothesis-based work: the argument tries to establish or rule out a causal explanation.
• Algorithmic or device work: the argument proposes a procedure, tool, or system and must show that it performs reliably and advantageously.

Do not use one narrative logic for all paper types.

For article-level rewrites, especially abstracts, introductions, Results openings, Discussion paragraphs, conclusions, and titles, also apply the writing patterns in references/published-article-patterns.md.

2. Write for the reader, not for the draft chronology

Most readers follow a stable sequence:

1. Is this relevant to me?
2. What is new here?
3. Do I trust it?
4. Can I reuse it?
5. What does it mean, and where are the boundaries?

Polishing should help the paper answer these questions in this order.

3. Use the hourglass structure

Strong papers often mirror an hourglass:

• Introduction: open broadly, then narrow to the specific gap, question, hypothesis, methods, and study
• Discussion/Conclusion: widen again, connecting the findings back to the literature and explaining how the knowledge gap was filled

If a paragraph or section violates this architecture, rebuild it before polishing wording.

4. Use the correct writing order

For a research article, a productive writing order is:

1. Results
2. Introduction and Conclusion
3. Title
4. Discussion
5. Materials and Methods
6. Authors
7. Abstract

For a methods paper, a productive writing order often begins with:

1. Methods
2. Results
3. Introduction
4. Conclusion
5. Discussion
6. Abstract

The skill should follow the logic of evidence and argument, not the raw order in which the user drafted sentences.

5. Protect the core argument

The paper's core argument includes:

• the scientific question the paper actually answers
• why that question matters
• how the work differs from existing research
• what the results imply
• how the main line of reasoning unfolds

AI may help polish, structure, or compare phrasings. AI should not invent or author the core argument. If the argument is weak or unclear, expose that weakness rather than hiding it under polished language.

6. Diagnose the failure mode before editing

Before rewriting, identify the main problem:

• wrong paper type logic
• missing gap or poor positioning
• claim without evidence
• evidence without a clear claim
• missing boundary or limitation
• Results and Discussion mixed together
• weak title or abstract signal
• sentence-level clutter only

Prioritize in this order:

paper type -> section job -> paragraph logic -> claim/evidence/boundary -> sentence polish

Section responsibilities

Introduction

The Introduction should:

• tell the reader why the work matters
• explain what gap it fills
• explain why that gap matters
• state what is already known
• state what remains unresolved
• state what question the paper asks
• indicate how the study addresses it

Do not summarize the Results section here. Do not summarize the Conclusion here.

Results

Results are a summary of the data collected to address the problem stated in the Introduction.

Results writing should:

• stay mainly in past tense
• report what was observed, under what conditions, and with what quantitative support
• use statistics correctly and sparingly
• use supplementary data sparingly

Results should answer what happened, not what it ultimately means.

Discussion

Discussion should answer:

• how the work fits within the broader field
• what has been added to understanding
• who should be credited for earlier work
• whether the findings support, complicate, or revise earlier results
• how the findings are interpreted
• when that interpretation may fail

Short rule:

• Results = what we observed
• Discussion = how we understand it, and when it may fail

Conclusion

Use the three-part close:

1. restate the central contribution
2. summarize the key evidence or outcome
3. state the implication with a boundary

Do not introduce new data in the conclusion. Always run an overclaim check here.

Title

A strong title should:

• tell the reader what to expect
• avoid unnecessary technical language
• be easy to search
• be substantiated by data
• create curiosity without sacrificing credibility

Use curiosity with credibility, not empty cleverness. A hook is only acceptable if the claim remains fully defensible.

Materials and Methods

Methods should be specific, complete, transparent, and reproducible.

Another group should be able to determine:

• whether the work conforms to ethical norms
• what materials and conditions were used
• which key parameters, controls, and replicates were used
• how data were processed and analysed
• which statistical tests and software versions were used

It is acceptable to abbreviate by citing an earlier report only when that report truly contains the necessary detail.

Never leave vague phrases such as:

• under standard conditions
• using routine methods
• data were analyzed statistically
• differences were significant
• samples were randomly assigned
• the method was validated

Replace them with the actual reproducible information.