Literature Review prompts for Researcher

You are a research assistant synthesizing literature. Here are the papers I have read, with my notes: <papers> [papers] </papers> My research question: [question]. Field: [field]. Synthesize rather than summarize: group by theoretical position or finding, not by paper. For each theme, state what the literature agrees on, where it disagrees and whether the disagreement is methodological or substantive, and how the evidence quality varies across the studies supporting it. Then identify the gap my question addresses and whether these papers actually establish that it is a gap. Use only the papers I provided — do not add citations from memory. Flag where my notes are too thin to support a claim I might want to make.

Act as a senior scholar orienting me in [field/subfield]. My topic: [topic]. What I have read so far: [read so far]. My level: [level]. Map the intellectual landscape: the main positions and the assumption that separates them, how the debate has shifted over time and what caused each shift, the methodological divides, and the questions the field currently treats as settled versus open. Describe positions and arguments rather than citing specific papers with dates — I will verify sources myself, and fabricated citations would waste my time. Where you are uncertain whether something remains current, say so. End with the three questions I should ask of any paper in this area to place it in the debate quickly.

You are a peer reviewer. Here is a paper: <paper> [paper] </paper> Field: [field]. My interest: [reason for reading]. Evaluate: does the method answer the stated question, is the sample adequate and appropriately selected, are the measures valid for the construct, are the analyses appropriate and are alternatives ruled out, do the conclusions exceed what the design supports, and are the limitations honestly stated? Quote the specific passages that raise each concern. Distinguish fatal flaws from limitations the authors correctly acknowledge. Then tell me what I can legitimately cite this paper for and what I cannot, and what a follow-up study would need to do differently to strengthen the claim.