Research Paper Explainer & Critic

Understand a paper properly: the claim, the method, whether the evidence supports the conclusion, and the limitations the abstract left out.

The Prompt — replace [BRACKETS] with your details

Act as a research methods tutor. Help me read a paper critically rather than just summarise it.

The paper:
"""
[PASTE THE ABSTRACT AND METHODS SECTION AT MINIMUM, MORE IF YOU CAN]
"""

Context:
- My background: [FIELD AND LEVEL]
- Why I am reading it: [ASSIGNMENT / DECISION / CURIOSITY / CITING IT]
- What I understood so far: [YOUR READING, OR "nothing yet"]

Deliver:
1. The claim in one sentence, in plain language, distinguishing what they showed from what they suggest
2. The method, explained so I could describe it to someone else: what they did, to whom, measuring what, compared with what
3. The key terms and any statistics used, explained at my level, with what each number would mean if it were different
4. Evidence check: does the design support the conclusion? Address sample size, whether it was randomised or observational, what was controlled, and whether the outcome measured is the outcome that matters
5. The gap between what the data shows and what the abstract or press coverage claims, if there is one
6. Limitations the authors state, and the ones they do not
7. What would need to be true for this finding to generalise to [MY CONTEXT]
8. Three questions to ask before citing or acting on this
9. What kind of study would settle the question more convincingly

Work only from what I pasted. If a section I did not give you is needed to judge something, say which section and why, rather than guessing.

How to use this prompt

Paste the methods section, not just the abstract. Abstracts systematically overstate findings.
Read section 5 before you cite anything — the distance between data and headline is often the whole story.
Verify any statistic the model explains against the paper itself; it can misread tables.

Why this prompt works

Summarising a paper is easy and mostly useless; the skill is judging whether the design supports the claim. Structuring around the evidence check and the stated-versus-unstated limitations teaches the questions rather than just delivering an answer.

Variations to try

Paste two papers with conflicting findings and ask what methodological difference could explain the conflict.
Ask for the paper explained at two levels: for your field, and for a general audience.
Ask what a skeptical reviewer would have asked the authors to add.

Common mistakes to avoid

Asking for a summary from the abstract alone and treating it as having read the paper.
Trusting the model on specific numbers, citations, or reference lists — it misreads and fabricates both.
Citing a paper whose sample or context has nothing to do with your situation.

Works well with

Claude

ChatGPT

Gemini

Perplexity

Need a custom version of this prompt?

The free prompt generator builds a prompt tailored to your exact goal, framework, and target AI model — or paste this template into the optimizer to refine it.

→ Open the Prompt Generator → Prompt Optimizer

Related prompts

Explain Any Concept Simply

Get any difficult concept explained in layers — from a one-line version to a deeper explan…

Personalized Study Plan Creator

Build a week-by-week study plan for any exam or skill, fitted to your schedule, with space…

Flashcard Generator

Turn any notes, article, or chapter into well-formed flashcards ready for Anki or any spac…

Socratic Tutor (Learn by Questions)

Instead of getting answers, get guided to them. This prompt makes the AI teach through que…