Check my manuscript against a reporting guideline
Audits a draft against the right reporting checklist (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and more) and lists exactly what's missing.
The prompt
Check my manuscript against the appropriate reporting guideline.
Study design: [e.g. "randomized trial", "cohort study", "systematic review", "qualitative interviews", "diagnostic accuracy", "animal study", "prediction model"]
Guideline (if known): [e.g. CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, COREQ/SRQR, STARD, ARRIVE, TRIPOD, or "suggest one"]
Manuscript text: [PASTE the full text or the relevant sections]
Target journal requirements: [e.g. "checklist must be uploaded with page numbers"]
Steps:
1. Confirm which guideline (and any extension) fits my design, and why.
2. Go through the guideline items in order. For each, mark: reported fully / partly / missing / not applicable, and quote the sentence where it is reported with its section.
3. For partly reported or missing items, explain what a reviewer would expect and draft suggested text, with any facts I must supply marked [ADD].
4. Highlight the items most often flagged by editors for this design (e.g. randomization and allocation concealment, handling of missing data, reflexivity).
Return a checklist table (Item | Requirement summary | Status | Location/quote | Fix), then the top 5 fixes by importance. Base item wording on the official checklist and tell me to verify against its current version.
Highlighted [brackets] are blanks to replace with your own details.
Fill in the blanks and use this promptMore Research & Summaries prompts
What to fill in
- PASTE the full text or the relevant sections
- e.g. "checklist must be uploaded with page numbers"
- ADD
How this prompt is built
This prompt follows the Few-Shot structure (Few-shot prompting). A few-shot prompt includes one or more worked examples of the input and the output you want, so the model can copy the pattern instead of guessing it.
Related prompts
- Compare companies, products, or approaches objectivelyA fair, evidence-based comparison table of companies, products, or approaches, with sources, unknowns, and best-fit scenarios.
- Create screening criteria and a data extraction form for a reviewDefines clear inclusion/exclusion rules and a piloted extraction template so screening and extraction are consistent across reviewers.
- Peer-review an academic paper or thesisA rigorous reviewer-style critique of a paper's contribution, methods, and clarity.
- Polish academic writing for clarity and toneEdits academic prose to be precise, formal, and well-argued without changing the content.