# Academic Reporting Standards > Use when an academic paper, thesis, dissertation, journal article, systematic review, or examinable artefact must follow a named reporting or examination standard; use academic-writing instead for prose craft without a reporting-standard decision. - Skill: `peterbamuhigire/academic-reporting-standards` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 11 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add peterbamuhigire/academic-reporting-standards` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/peterbamuhigire/academic-reporting-standards/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: peterbamuhigire (https://skillmd.com/u/peterbamuhigire) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/peterbamuhigire/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 | Artefact type | Load | |---|---| | **Doctoral dissertation** | `references/brause-dissertation-craft.md` (always) + `references/oxbridge-ivy-examination-conventions.md` for Oxbridge/Ivy/LSE targets or the relevant regional skill (`uganda-academic-research`, `kenya-academic-research`) + `references/methodology-justification-checklist.md` + `references/originality-claim.md` + `references/viva-defense-preparation.md` | | **Master's research thesis / dissertation** | `references/oxbridge-ivy-examination-conventions.md` for Oxbridge/Ivy/LSE targets or the relevant regional skill (`uganda-academic-research`, `kenya-academic-research`) + `references/methodology-justification-checklist.md` + `references/originality-claim.md` where original research is required | | **Systematic review** | `references/equator-decision-tree.md` (PRISMA 2020 + Cochrane Handbook) + GRADE for evidence quality | | **Randomised controlled trial paper** | `references/equator-decision-tree.md` (CONSORT 2025) + GRADE | | **Observational study paper** | `references/equator-decision-tree.md` (STROBE) + GRADE | | **Meta-analysis of observational studies** | `references/equator-decision-tree.md` (MOOSE) + GRADE | | **Mixed-methods or qualitative study** | `references/equator-decision-tree.md` (Cochrane qualitative synthesis) | | **Research proposal** | `references/brause-dissertation-craft.md` + `references/originality-claim.md` + `references/methodology-justification-checklist.md` | | **Journal article (any)** | Reporting-standard for the study type + `references/findings-interpretation-criteria.md` | ## 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 | Input | Source/provider | If absent | |---|---|---| | Artefact and study design | Author or protocol | Stop before selecting a checklist | | Institution, venue, and current rules | Primary institutional or publisher source | Mark the rule unverified and do not assert compliance | ## 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 | Artefact | Consumer | Acceptance condition | |---|---|---| | Standards crosswalk | Author, supervisor, or examiner | Every applicable item maps to a location, gap, or justified non-applicability | ## 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 | Choice | Action | Failure/risk avoided | |---|---|---| | Study design matches a named guideline | Apply its checklist | Wrong reporting standard | | Local rule conflicts with generic craft | Follow verified local rule | Examination non-compliance | | Rule is unavailable or stale | Mark not assessed | False compliance claim | ## 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](references/equator-decision-tree.md) - [Methodology justification checklist](references/methodology-justification-checklist.md) - [Examination conventions](references/oxbridge-ivy-examination-conventions.md) ## Evidence Produced | Evidence | Consumer | Acceptance condition | |---|---|---| | Standards crosswalk and current-rule register | Author, supervisor, or examiner | Each applicable requirement maps to manuscript evidence, a justified exclusion, or a visible gap | ## 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.