Academic Reporting Standards

Academic Reporting Standards

Single entry skill for any academic artefact intended for an examination committee, a peer-reviewed journal, or an institutional review at Ivy-League / Oxbridge / LSE quality. The skill operates alongside academic-writing (which handles citation styles, plagiarism prevention, and originality), through critical-reasoning-and-argument (which tests the claim-gap-method-contribution logic), and above report-and-proposal-craft (which handles long-form scaffolding for non-academic outputs).

This skill has three layers, all load-bearing:

• Practical craft — the "invisible rules" Rita Brause articulates: dissertation as apprenticeship, chair-as-quasi-parental relationship, parallel work, pilot everything, recursive process. The unwritten conventions every examination committee assumes the candidate knows. Reference: references/brause-dissertation-craft.md.
• Institutional examination conventions — current published rules for Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. This layer encodes word-count discipline, thesis-by-papers structures, original-contribution language, viva/defense procedures, examiner criteria, and explicit gaps where no central word-count cap is published. Reference: references/oxbridge-ivy-examination-conventions.md.
• Formal reporting — the published study-type-specific checklists (PRISMA / CONSORT / STROBE / MOOSE / GRADE / Cochrane / TOP) hosted by the EQUATOR Network. The conventions every top journal and every doctoral committee require. Reference: references/equator-decision-tree.md.

A thesis or paper that satisfies only one layer fails. Examiners look for all applicable layers.

When to use

Use this skill on any of:

• Doctoral dissertation / thesis at Ivy / Oxbridge / LSE / equivalent
• Master's dissertation at the same standard
• Journal article for a peer-reviewed venue (Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, Nature, Science, top-tier social-science journals)
• Systematic review — any
• Conference paper at A* venues
• Grant proposal / research proposal for an institutional or funding-body review
• Book proposal for an academic publisher

Do not use on: executive summaries (use executive-communication), business reports (use report-and-proposal-craft), blog posts, internal memos.

The five rules (load first)

1. Genre-correct structure. Academic artefacts use neutral topic headings (Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Findings, Discussion, Conclusion) — not action titles. Reference: references/brause-dissertation-craft.md.
2. Original contribution declared. Every doctoral artefact states explicitly, in the abstract and in chapter 1, what is new. The contribution is gap-filling, inconsistency-resolving, conflict-clarifying, theory-testing, or theory-building. Reference: references/originality-claim.md.
3. Methodology justified, not described. Every methodological choice carries its rationale, tied back to the theory or phenomenon under investigation. Reference: references/methodology-justification-checklist.md.
4. Reporting-standard compliance. The artefact ships with the appropriate EQUATOR-network checklist completed and submitted. Reference: references/equator-decision-tree.md.
5. Examiner-defensible. Every paragraph must be defensible at viva. Apprentice-level statements ship without hedge; expert-level statements require evidence; original-contribution statements require the gap-evidence-fit chain. Reference: references/viva-defense-preparation.md.
6. Argument defensible. Every literature gap, original-contribution claim, methodology choice, interpretation, implication, and recommendation passes critical-reasoning-and-argument before the manuscript is treated as examinable.

Decision router — load the matching reference

The Brause practical-craft layer — one-paragraph summary

Rita S. Brause's Writing Your Doctoral Dissertation: Invisible Rules for Success (1999) names the unwritten conventions that determine completion at Ivy / Oxbridge / LSE-equivalent institutions. Faculty see the dissertation as an apprenticeship (proof of capacity for scholarly work), not as a final examination on coursework. The chair-student relationship is quasi-parental and quasi-political; choice of chair predicts completion more than choice of topic. Students self-initiate every interaction; silence is interpreted as progress. Work in parallel — never wait for a chapter to come back. The proposal is a contract once approved, but new administrations can change the rules; finish fast. ABD is a trap. Pilot everything. The process is recursive; linear plans fail. Reference: references/brause-dissertation-craft.md.

The formal-reporting layer — one-paragraph summary

The EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research, https://www.equator-network.org/) hosts the master decision tree of 250+ published reporting guidelines. The engine encodes the most consequential: PRISMA 2020 (27-item checklist for systematic reviews); CONSORT 2025 (30-item checklist for randomised controlled trials, endorsed by 600+ journals including Lancet, BMJ, JAMA, NEJM); STROBE (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies); MOOSE (meta-analyses of observational studies, 35-item); GRADE (4-level evidence quality with 5 downgrade and 3 upgrade factors); Cochrane Handbook (systematic-review gold standard, includes RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools); TOP Guidelines (Transparency and Openness Promotion — 8 modular standards × 3 implementation levels). For style, the engine routes: Bluebook (US legal), OSCOLA (Oxford legal), Chicago / Turabian (humanities), APA (social sciences), AMA / Vancouver (medicine), MLA (literature). Reference: references/equator-decision-tree.md.

The institution-specific layer — one-paragraph summary

The named institutions do not share one universal dissertation word count. Cambridge and Oxford require the exact Degree Committee / Examination Regulation because word limits vary by subject. LSE publishes a school-wide PhD limit of 100,000 words including footnotes and excluding bibliography and appendices. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton central guidance reviewed in the Wave-2 mining pass did not publish a universal PhD dissertation word-count cap; their enforceable requirements are programme/department format, original-contribution standards, committee/reader reports, and defense/FPO procedures. Reference: references/oxbridge-ivy-examination-conventions.md.

Universal output ship-gate

Before any academic artefact ships, every box must be ticked:

• Title is a descriptive title that names variables and population (hypothesis-testing) or research focus (hypothesis-generating). Revised through the project.
• Abstract ≤ 350 words; covers title, problem, theoretical frame, data sources, analytic procedures, outcomes. (DAI standard.)
• Chapter 1 / Introduction establishes that the study is doable, significant, comprehensive, and addresses a pivotal disciplinary issue.
• Literature review is organised topically (not chronologically) where the field permits; identifies the gap / inconsistency / conflict the study addresses; closes with a potential-significance statement.
• Methodology justifies every choice with reference to the theory under investigation. Pilot evidence, sample-size justification, IRB approval, validity, limitations all explicit.
• Findings ship tables/figures first, narrative second, synthesis third. Five tests: thorough, clear, logical, relevant, cautious.
• Discussion acknowledges biases, the bases for them, and other perspectives; avoids polemics.
• Conclusion has four sub-sections: summary, conclusions, implications, recommendations.
• Original-contribution claim is explicit in the abstract and chapter 1; defensible by the gap-evidence-fit chain.
• Critical-reasoning gate passed: argument map, countercase, fallacy audit, and certainty calibration completed for the contribution, method, findings interpretation, and recommendations.
• Institution-specific regulation check completed: exact institution, school/department, degree, format, word-count inclusions/exclusions, and viva/defense rules recorded. If no published central cap exists, the gap is stated rather than filled with a guessed number.
• Reporting-standard checklist for the study type is completed and submitted with the artefact.
• Citation style matches the institution / journal: Bluebook / OSCOLA / Chicago / APA / AMA / Vancouver / MLA.
• Plagiarism check run via academic-writing skill.
• Viva defensibility — every paragraph is defensible; biases are acknowledged; alternative perspectives are accommodated.

Universal anti-patterns

• Treating the dissertation as a long term paper. The genre is different. The lit review is not background; the methodology is not a recipe.
• Choosing the chair by prestige. Brause's data: completion rate tracks the chair's history of graduating students, not the chair's reputation.
• Outsourcing statistical or methodological work without owning the logic. Orals expose memorised verbatim answers within minutes.
• Equating statistical with substantive significance. A p < 0.001 finding can be substantively trivial; a non-significant finding can be substantively important.
• Over-claiming or under-claiming findings. Both are examiner red flags. Findings are calibrated to the data.
• Action titles in academic chapters. The convention is neutral topic headings. Reserve action titles for the executive-summary version of the work (use executive-communication for that).
• Skipping the EQUATOR checklist. Every top-tier journal requires the relevant reporting-standard checklist. Submitting without it signals amateur.
• Inventing a universal Ivy/Oxbridge word count. Cambridge and Oxford vary by subject; Harvard/Yale/Princeton central guidance does not supply a universal cap in the mined sources. Use the exact department/programme rule or state the gap.
• Polemics in the discussion. Brause Ch 14: "acknowledge biases and the bases for these, while recognising the possibility of other perspectives. Avoid polemics."

Companion skills

• academic-writing — citation styles, plagiarism prevention, originality, hedging discipline. Runs alongside this skill.
• critical-reasoning-and-argument — mandatory for examiner-defensible claim, gap, methodology, interpretation, contribution, and countercase logic.
• analytic-tradecraft — for any forward-looking judgment inside the discussion section, the Heuer/Pherson SATs apply (KAC, ACH for contested findings).
• source-evaluation — every source in the literature review carries a tier and verification trail.
• uganda-academic-research, kenya-academic-research — institution-specific East African proposal, thesis, dissertation, viva, ethics, and formatting rules.
• executive-communication — for the executive-summary version of the work that ships to non-academic audiences alongside the dissertation.
• python-document-generation / professional-word-output — rendering layer for the final manuscript.

Sources for this skill

• Brause, Rita S. Writing Your Doctoral Dissertation: Invisible Rules for Success. Falmer Press / RoutledgeFalmer, 1999. Tier 1.
• EQUATOR Network. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. https://www.equator-network.org/. Tier 1.
• PRISMA 2020. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/. Tier 1.
• CONSORT 2025. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort/. Tier 1.
• STROBE. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/. Tier 1.
• MOOSE. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/moose/. Tier 1.
• GRADE Working Group. https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/. Tier 1.
• Cochrane Handbook. https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current. Tier 1.
• TOP Guidelines (Center for Open Science). https://www.cos.io/initiatives/top-guidelines. Tier 1.
• Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, Harvard, Yale, Princeton institutional examination and dissertation guidance. See references/oxbridge-ivy-examination-conventions.md. Tier 1.

The verbatim attribution discipline applies. References to Brause carry chapter; references to PRISMA / CONSORT / GRADE etc. carry the canonical institutional URL.

Wave-2 task: institution-specific examination conventions

Completed in references/oxbridge-ivy-examination-conventions.md. Refresh this reference before high-stakes use because institutional regulations can change annually. The refresh must use current institutional primary sources and preserve the rule that missing word-count rules are marked as gaps, not inferred.

Use When

Use when the artefact type or institution creates a formal reporting or examination requirement.

Do Not Use When

Use academic-writing when the need is argument, prose, citation, or synthesis craft without a standards-selection problem.

Inputs

Workflow

1. Classify the artefact and study design.
2. Select only the applicable reporting and examination references.
3. Map each requirement to manuscript evidence; stop on a missing mandatory item.
4. Recover from unavailable current rules by reporting a standards gap, then issue a qualified checklist.

Outputs

Reporting Evidence Guidance

The completed crosswalk, source register for current rules, and unresolved-item log support the compliance claim.

Assessment Capability Notes

Assessment is read-only by default. Editing a manuscript or submitting to an institution requires separate authority; this skill cannot certify acceptance.

Degraded Mode

When current institutional rules cannot be verified, apply only stable craft guidance and label institution-specific checks not assessed.

Decision Rules

Quality Standards

Requirements are current, directly sourced, artefact-specific, and never inferred from another institution.

Reporting Pitfalls

• Applying every checklist; select by design.
• Treating guidance as regulation; label authority.
• Inferring a missing word limit; record a gap.
• Claiming compliance from manuscript quality alone; complete the crosswalk.
• Editing during a read-only assessment; obtain authority.

Worked Example

A systematic review receives the applicable reporting crosswalk plus verified venue rules; an unavailable local word limit remains not assessed.

References

• Reporting decision tree
• Methodology justification checklist
• Examination conventions

Evidence Produced

Capability Contract

Minimum capability is read-only access to the artefact and verified rules. Assessment defaults to read-only; editing, submission, mutation, publication, or certification requires explicit authorisation.

Anti-Patterns

• Applying every checklist. Fix: select only those matching the artefact and study design.
• Treating guidance as regulation. Fix: label the authority and binding status of each rule.
• Inferring a missing word limit. Fix: verify it from the institution or mark a gap.
• Claiming compliance from prose quality. Fix: complete the requirement-to-evidence crosswalk.
• Editing during assessment. Fix: obtain separate mutation authority before changing the manuscript.