Improve the academic writing in my draft while preserving my argument, evidence, citations, and disciplinary meaning. Do not add sources, results, methods, interpretations, quotations, or factual claims that are not already in my text or notes. Draft to polish: [DRAFT] Discipline and assignment level: [DISCIPLINE AND LEVEL] Audience and assignment requirements: [ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS] Preferred citation style: [CITATION STYLE] Main writing concern: [WRITING GOAL] Work in two passes. Pass 1: diagnose the writing. Give a concise list of the three highest-impact patterns affecting academic quality. Address only relevant issues such as vague claims, weak topic sentences, unclear antecedents, nominalizations, excessive hedging, unsupported certainty, paragraph cohesion, quotation integration, tense consistency, or discipline-specific terminology. Quote brief examples and explain the underlying principle. Pass 2: provide a revised version of the draft, preserving paragraph order unless a structural move is necessary. Use tracked-style notation: show each changed sentence as “Original:” and “Revision:” for up to 12 material changes, then provide a clean revised draft. Keep direct quotations exact. Preserve citations exactly as written; flag, rather than repair, incomplete or potentially inaccurate citations. Use plain, precise sentences. Replace vague intensifiers and filler with concrete wording only where my source material supports it. Keep qualified language when the evidence is limited; do not make the prose sound more certain than the research permits. Do not rewrite in a voice that is more ornate than the discipline requires. Self-check before answering: flag every proposed change that could alter the claim, scope, or evidentiary strength, and confirm that no new factual content or citation has been introduced. Ask up to three clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [DRAFT] | Paste the section or full draft you want to improve, including quotations and citations. | The survey results are very important because they show that there was a large amount of concern among participants. This could possibly suggest a relationship between commute time and stress (Lee, 2024). |
| [DISCIPLINE AND LEVEL] | Name the subject and academic level, such as undergraduate sociology or master’s-level public health. | Undergraduate sociology, second-year research methods course. |
| [ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS] | Provide the assignment purpose, audience, word limit, and any style rules from the instructor or journal. | Results-and-discussion section for a 1,500-word report; explain findings cautiously and distinguish correlation from causation. |
| [CITATION STYLE] | Name the required citation style or write that citations should remain unchanged. | APA 7; preserve existing citations and flag missing page numbers for direct quotations. |
| [WRITING GOAL] | State the main issue you want to address, such as clarity, concision, transitions, or formal tone. | Make the prose more concise and formal without overstating what the survey can prove. |
How to use
- Paste enough surrounding context to show what each paragraph is trying to prove; isolated sentences are harder to polish accurately.
- Tell the AI your field because acceptable phrasing differs across disciplines, especially around methods, certainty, and first-person voice.
- Compare each material revision with your original to ensure it has not changed the scope or strength of your claim.
- Follow up with: “Explain the three changes that most improved cohesion so I can apply the same technique elsewhere.”
Variations
Abstract polish
Use this for a paper abstract that must fit a strict word limit.
Polish this academic abstract without adding findings or changing the study’s claims. Abstract: [ABSTRACT] Field and audience: [FIELD] Word limit: [WORD LIMIT] Required elements: [REQUIRED ELEMENTS] Return a clean revised abstract within the limit, followed by a five-part check for background, purpose, method, results, and implication. Preserve all numbers, sample details, and uncertainty exactly unless I provide a correction. Make the result and implication distinguishable. Flag any required element missing from the original instead of inventing it. Check word count and verify that no causal claim exceeds the study design. Ask up to three questions only if needed.
Literature review
Use this to improve synthesis across research sources.
Improve the academic writing in this literature-review section while preserving the cited sources and their stated findings. Draft: [LITERATURE REVIEW] Research question: [RESEARCH QUESTION] Discipline: [DISCIPLINE] Citation style: [STYLE] First identify where the draft summarizes studies one by one rather than synthesizing them. Then revise it to group agreement, disagreement, methods, and gaps where the existing content supports that organization. Keep all citations attached to the claims they support and do not add sources or misrepresent findings. Return a synthesis map and a clean revision. Check that every comparative statement has support in the supplied text. Ask up to three questions only if required.
Sentence clarity
Use this to learn from a difficult paragraph rather than rewrite a full paper.
Teach me to improve clarity in this academic paragraph without changing its meaning. Paragraph: [PARAGRAPH] Discipline: [DISCIPLINE] Audience: [AUDIENCE] Main problem: [CONCERN] Return: (1) a one-sentence statement of the paragraph’s claim, (2) up to five specific clarity issues with explanations, (3) a revised paragraph, and (4) three editing rules drawn from my own examples. Preserve citations, numbers, and all qualifications. Flag any sentence whose meaning cannot be determined from the text. Check that the revision introduces no facts or stronger conclusions. Ask up to three questions only if needed.
Tips
- In empirical writing, match verb strength to the design: an observational study can show an association but does not by itself establish causation.
- Give each paragraph a job; its opening should signal the claim, and its final sentence should connect that claim to the next step in the argument.
- Keep technical terms when they carry needed precision, but define them on first use if the intended audience may not know them.
- Do not treat a grammar polish as a fact check; verify dates, figures, quotation wording, and citations against your original sources.
FAQ
Will AI preserve my academic voice?
It can if you provide your discipline, audience, and a clear goal. Compare revisions carefully where wording affects caution, method, or interpretation.
Can AI fix my citations?
It can flag inconsistent formatting, but you should verify citations against the required style guide and the source itself. It should not invent missing bibliographic details.
How is polishing different from editing an argument?
Polishing improves expression, cohesion, and precision. Argument editing may require changing claims, evidence, or structure, which needs more assignment and source context.