Initial commit

skills/academic-research-writer/references/ACADEMIC-WRITING.md

@@ -0,0 +1,233 @@
+# Academic Writing Conventions
+
+## Table of Contents
+1. Academic Tone and Voice
+2. Sentence and Paragraph Construction
+3. Argumentation and Logic
+4. Common Errors to Avoid
+5. Discipline-Specific Conventions
+
+## 1. Academic Tone and Voice
+
+### Formality Levels
+
+**High Formality (STEM, Law, Medicine):**
+- Avoid contractions (use "cannot" not "can't")
+- Minimize personal pronouns
+- Use passive voice strategically
+- Employ technical terminology precisely
+
+**Moderate Formality (Social Sciences, Humanities):**
+- Personal pronouns acceptable in methodology
+- Active voice preferred for clarity
+- Balance between accessibility and precision
+
+### Objectivity
+
+**Maintain neutrality:**
+- Present multiple perspectives
+- Acknowledge counterarguments
+- Use hedging language: "suggests," "appears," "may indicate"
+- Avoid absolute statements: "proves," "always," "never"
+
+**Hedge appropriately:**
+- Strong evidence: "demonstrates," "shows," "indicates"
+- Moderate evidence: "suggests," "implies," "may reflect"
+- Weak evidence: "might," "could," "appears to"
+
+### Precision
+
+**Be specific:**
+- ❌ "Many studies show..."
+- ✅ "A meta-analysis of 47 studies [1] demonstrates..."
+
+**Use technical terms correctly:**
+- Define specialized terms on first use
+- Maintain consistency in terminology
+- Use standard abbreviations
+
+## 2. Sentence and Paragraph Construction
+
+### Sentence Structure
+
+**Clarity principles:**
+- One main idea per sentence
+- Subject-verb proximity
+- Active voice for clarity (when appropriate)
+- Vary sentence length for readability
+
+**Examples:**
+
+❌ Weak: "It was found by the researchers that the algorithm performed better."
+✅ Strong: "The algorithm demonstrated superior performance [1]."
+
+❌ Weak: "There are many factors that contribute to climate change."
+✅ Strong: "Multiple factors contribute to climate change, including greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and industrial activity [2]."
+
+### Paragraph Structure
+
+**Standard academic paragraph:**
+
+1. **Topic sentence**: Introduces main idea
+2. **Evidence**: Supporting data, citations, examples
+3. **Analysis**: Interpretation and explanation
+4. **Link**: Connection to thesis or transition to next point
+
+**Example:**
+
+"Machine learning algorithms have transformed medical diagnostics [Topic]. Recent studies demonstrate that deep learning models achieve diagnostic accuracy comparable to expert physicians in radiology [1], dermatology [2], and pathology [3] [Evidence]. This performance stems from the algorithms' ability to recognize complex patterns in large datasets that may elude human observation [Analysis]. These advances suggest a paradigm shift in clinical decision-making processes [Link]."
+
+### Transitions
+
+**Between paragraphs:**
+- However, Moreover, Furthermore
+- In contrast, Similarly, Conversely
+- Consequently, Therefore, Thus
+- First, Second, Finally
+
+**Within paragraphs:**
+- Additionally, Also, Furthermore
+- For example, For instance, Specifically
+- In other words, That is to say
+- Nevertheless, Nonetheless, Still
+
+## 3. Argumentation and Logic
+
+### Thesis Development
+
+**Strong thesis characteristics:**
+- Specific and focused
+- Arguable (not self-evident)
+- Supported by evidence
+- Addresses "so what?" question
+
+**Examples:**
+
+❌ Weak: "Social media affects society."
+✅ Strong: "Social media platforms' algorithmic curation of content contributes to political polarization by creating echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and limit exposure to diverse viewpoints."
+
+### Evidence Integration
+
+**Citation placement:**
+
+**Author-prominent:**
+"Smith et al. [1] argue that quantum computing will revolutionize cryptography."
+
+**Information-prominent:**
+"Quantum computing threatens current cryptographic methods [1], [2]."
+
+**Synthesis of multiple sources:**
+"While some researchers emphasize the benefits of AI in education [1], [3], others highlight potential risks [2], [4]."
+
+### Logical Fallacies to Avoid
+
+1. **Hasty generalization**: Drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence
+2. **False causation**: Assuming correlation implies causation
+3. **Appeal to authority**: Relying solely on credentials without evidence
+4. **Straw man**: Misrepresenting opposing arguments
+5. **Cherry picking**: Selecting only supporting evidence
+
+## 4. Common Errors to Avoid
+
+### Wordiness
+
+❌ "Due to the fact that"
+✅ "Because"
+
+❌ "In order to"
+✅ "To"
+
+❌ "It is important to note that"
+✅ Delete (unnecessary)
+
+### Redundancy
+
+❌ "Past history," "future plans," "advance warning"
+✅ "History," "plans," "warning"
+
+### Vague Language
+
+❌ "Things," "stuff," "a lot," "very"
+✅ Specific nouns and precise quantifiers
+
+### Inappropriate Register
+
+❌ "The data is super interesting and shows..."
+✅ "The data reveals significant patterns..."
+
+### Anthropomorphism
+
+❌ "The study wants to prove..."
+✅ "This study aims to demonstrate..."
+
+❌ "The paper believes that..."
+✅ "This paper argues that..."
+
+## 5. Discipline-Specific Conventions
+
+### STEM Fields
+
+**Characteristics:**
+- Emphasis on methodology and reproducibility
+- Extensive use of figures, tables, equations
+- Passive voice acceptable in methods sections
+- Present tense for established facts, past tense for specific studies
+
+**Example:**
+"Samples were collected from five sites (Methods). Figure 1 shows the temperature distribution (Results). These findings indicate that thermal gradients affect reaction rates (Discussion)."
+
+### Social Sciences
+
+**Characteristics:**
+- Theoretical frameworks prominently discussed
+- Qualitative and quantitative methods
+- First-person acceptable in reflective methodology
+- Past tense for research conducted, present for ongoing debate
+
+**Example:**
+"Previous research suggests that socioeconomic factors influence educational outcomes [1]. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 participants to explore this relationship."
+
+### Humanities
+
+**Characteristics:**
+- Emphasis on interpretation and analysis
+- Extensive engagement with primary texts
+- Present tense for discussing texts/artworks
+- More flexible citation practices (footnotes common)
+
+**Example:**
+"In Pride and Prejudice, Austen critiques the marriage market of Regency England. Elizabeth Bennet's refusal of Mr. Collins represents a radical assertion of female autonomy."
+
+### Engineering
+
+**Characteristics:**
+- Focus on problem-solving and implementation
+- Detailed technical specifications
+- Extensive use of diagrams and schematics
+- Clear delineation of requirements and results
+
+**Example:**
+"The proposed architecture achieves 95% accuracy with 40% lower computational complexity than existing methods [1]. Figure 2 illustrates the system design."
+
+## Best Practices Summary
+
+1. **Clarity over complexity**: Simple, direct language conveys ideas more effectively
+2. **Evidence-based claims**: Support all assertions with citations
+3. **Logical structure**: Organize ideas hierarchically and sequentially
+4. **Consistent terminology**: Use terms uniformly throughout
+5. **Appropriate tone**: Match formality to discipline and audience
+6. **Active engagement**: Show critical thinking, not just summary
+7. **Revision**: Multiple drafts improve quality significantly
+
+## Self-Review Checklist
+
+- [ ] Each paragraph has clear topic sentence
+- [ ] Claims supported by evidence
+- [ ] Transitions between ideas smooth
+- [ ] Tone formal and objective
+- [ ] Technical terms defined
+- [ ] No logical fallacies
+- [ ] Sentence variety maintained
+- [ ] Citations integrated smoothly
+- [ ] Discipline conventions followed
+- [ ] "So what?" question answered

skills/academic-research-writer/references/IEEE-CITATION-GUIDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
+# IEEE Citation Guide
+
+## Table of Contents
+1. General IEEE Rules
+2. Detailed Format Examples
+3. Special Cases
+4. In-Text Citation Patterns
+5. Common Mistakes
+6. Quick Reference Table
+
+## 1. General IEEE Rules
+
+### Basic Principles
+
+**Numbering:**
+- Number references consecutively in order of first appearance in text
+- Use square brackets [1], [2], [3]
+- References cited multiple times keep original number
+
+**Author Names:**
+- Format: First Initial(s). Last Name
+- List all authors if six or fewer
+- Use "et al." after first author if more than six
+- Separate authors with commas, "and" before last author
+
+**Punctuation:**
+- Use commas between reference elements
+- End with period
+- Italicize journal/book titles
+- Use quotation marks for article/chapter titles
+
+### Abbreviations
+
+**Months:**
+Jan., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, Jun., Jul., Aug., Sep., Oct., Nov., Dec.
+
+**Common Terms:**
+- vol. (volume)
+- no. (number)
+- pp. (pages)
+- ed. (edition or editor)
+- Proc. (Proceedings)
+- Conf. (Conference)
+- Int. (International)
+- Dept. (Department)
+- Univ. (University)
+- Rep. (Report)
+
+## 2. Detailed Format Examples
+
+### Journal Articles
+
+**Standard format:**
+```
+[1] A. Author, B. Author, and C. Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year.
+```
+
+**With DOI:**
+```
+[2] A. Author, B. Author, and C. Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year, doi: 10.1234/example.
+```
+
+**Online/Open Access:**
+```
+[3] A. Author, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. X, no. Y, pp. ZZ-ZZ, Month Year. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1234/example
+```
+
+**Accepted for publication:**
+```
+[4] A. Author, "Title," Journal Name, to be published.
+```
+
+**In press:**
+```
+[5] A. Author, "Title," Journal Name, in press.
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+
+```
+[1] J. Smith, R. Johnson, and M. Williams, "Deep learning approaches for medical image analysis," IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 234-245, Mar. 2023.
+
+[2] L. Chen et al., "Quantum computing applications in cryptography," Nature Quantum Inf., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 112-128, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41534-023-00234-5.
+
+[3] K. Anderson, "Blockchain security protocols," ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 4, article 89, Apr. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3578234
+```
+
+### Conference Papers
+
+**Standard format:**
+```
+[1] A. Author and B. Author, "Title of paper," in Proc. Conference Name, City, State/Country, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ.
+```
+
+**With DOI:**
+```
+[2] A. Author, "Title," in Proc. Conf. Name, City, Country, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ, doi: 10.1234/example.
+```
+
+**Unpublished but presented:**
+```
+[3] A. Author, "Title," presented at Conf. Name, City, Country, Month Year.
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+
+```
+[1] P. Kumar and S. Patel, "Machine learning for network optimization," in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC), Rome, Italy, 2023, pp. 456-461.
+
+[2] M. Zhang, "Edge computing architectures," in Proc. 45th ACM Symp. Theory Comput., Boston, MA, USA, 2023, pp. 1234-1240, doi: 10.1145/3234567.3234890.
+
+[3] R. Taylor, "Novel cryptographic methods," presented at RSA Conf., San Francisco, CA, USA, Apr. 2023.
+```
+
+### Books
+
+**Complete book:**
+```
+[1] A. Author, Title of Book, Edition. City, State: Publisher, Year.
+```
+
+**With volume:**
+```
+[2] A. Author, Title of Book, Edition, vol. X. City, State: Publisher, Year.
+```
+
+**Chapter in edited book:**
+```
+[3] A. Author, "Title of chapter," in Book Title, Edition, Ed. City, State: Publisher, Year, pp. ZZ-ZZ.
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+
+```
+[1] D. Patterson and J. Hennessy, Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, 6th ed. Cambridge, MA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2017.
+
+[2] I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2016.
+
+[3] M. Nielsen, "Neural networks and deep learning," in Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, A. Editor, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2020, pp. 145-178.
+```
+
+### Technical Reports
+
+**Standard format:**
+```
+[1] A. Author, "Title of report," Institution, City, State, Rep. Number, Month Year.
+```
+
+**Available online:**
+```
+[2] A. Author, "Title," Institution, City, State, Rep. Number, Month Year. [Online]. Available: URL
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+
+```
+[1] R. Brooks, "Artificial intelligence in robotics," MIT Computer Sci. Artif. Intell. Lab., Cambridge, MA, USA, Tech. Rep. MIT-CSAIL-TR-2023-001, Jan. 2023.
+
+[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Cybersecurity framework," NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, NIST SP 800-53, Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/
+```
+
+### Theses and Dissertations
+
+**Standard format:**
+```
+[1] A. Author, "Title of thesis," M.S. thesis/Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Abbrev., University, City, State, Year.
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+
+```
+[1] S. Thompson, "Optimization algorithms for large-scale systems," Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, USA, 2023.
+
+[2] J. Martinez, "Novel approaches to data compression," M.S. thesis, Dept. Comput. Sci., MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022.
+```
+
+### Online Sources
+
+**Websites:**
+```
+[1] A. Author. "Title of webpage." Website Name. URL (accessed Month Day, Year).
+```
+
+**Without author:**
+```
+[2] "Title of webpage," Website Name. URL (accessed Month Day, Year).
+```
+
+**Examples:**
+
+```
+[1] T. Brown. "Language models are few-shot learners." OpenAI Blog. https://openai.com/blog/gpt-3 (accessed Jan. 15, 2023).
+
+[2] "Python documentation," Python Software Foundation. https://docs.python.org/3/ (accessed Mar. 10, 2023).
+```
+
+### Standards
+
+**Format:**
+```
+[1] Title of Standard, Standard Number, Year.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+[1] IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic, IEEE Std 754-2019, Jul. 2019.
+```
+
+### Patents
+
+**Format:**
+```
+[1] A. Inventor, "Title of patent," Country Patent Number, Month Day, Year.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+[1] J. Smith, "Method for data encryption," U.S. Patent 10,234,567, Mar. 19, 2019.
+```
+
+### Preprints (arXiv)
+
+**Format:**
+```
+[1] A. Author et al., "Title," arXiv preprint arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX, Month Year.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+[1] A. Vaswani et al., "Attention is all you need," arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03762, Jun. 2017.
+```
+
+## 3. Special Cases
+
+### Multiple Works by Same Author(s)
+
+Number chronologically and use original numbers:
+
+```
+[1] J. Smith, "First paper," ...2022.
+[2] J. Smith, "Second paper," ...2023.
+```
+
+Text cites: [1], [2]
+
+### Multiple Citations in One Bracket
+
+**Separate papers:**
+```
+[1], [2], [3] or [1]-[3]
+```
+
+**Same author, different papers:**
+```
+Smith [1], [2] or Smith [1]-[3]
+```
+
+### No Author Available
+
+Use organization or "Anonymous":
+
+```
+[1] National Research Council, Title, ...
+[2] Anonymous, "Title," ...
+```
+
+### Non-English Sources
+
+**With translation:**
+```
+[1] A. Author, "Titre en français (Title in French)," ...
+```
+
+**Original language kept:**
+```
+[1] A. Author, "原题 (Original title)," ...
+```
+
+## 4. In-Text Citation Patterns
+
+### Single Reference
+
+"Recent studies demonstrate improved accuracy [1]."
+
+"Smith et al. [1] proposed a novel algorithm..."
+
+### Multiple References
+
+**Sequential:**
+"Several studies [1]-[4] confirm..."
+
+**Non-sequential:**
+"Previous work [1], [3], [7] addresses..."
+
+### Reference in Sentence
+
+"As shown in [1], the method achieves..."
+
+"The algorithm described in [5] outperforms..."
+
+### Multiple Authors
+
+**Parenthetical:**
+"The technique improves efficiency [1]."
+
+**Narrative:**
+"Smith et al. [1] demonstrate that..."
+
+Note: Always use "et al." in text even if all authors listed in reference
+
+## 5. Common Mistakes
+
+### ❌ Incorrect Formats
+
+**Wrong:**
+```
+[1] Smith, J., Johnson, R. (2023). "Title of article." Journal Name, Vol. 42, No. 3, Pages 234-245.
+```
+
+**Correct:**
+```
+[1] J. Smith and R. Johnson, "Title of article," Journal Name, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 234-245, Mar. 2023.
+```
+
+### ❌ Author Name Format
+
+**Wrong:**
+- Smith, John (APA style)
+- John Smith
+- SMITH, J.
+
+**Correct:**
+- J. Smith
+- J. R. Smith
+
+### ❌ Punctuation Errors
+
+**Wrong:**
+- [1] J. Smith; "Title;" Journal; vol. 1; 2023
+- [1] J. Smith. "Title." Journal. vol. 1. 2023
+
+**Correct:**
+- [1] J. Smith, "Title," Journal, vol. 1, 2023.
+
+### ❌ Title Capitalization
+
+**Wrong:**
+- "The Effect Of Temperature On Reaction Rates" (title case)
+
+**Correct:**
+- "The effect of temperature on reaction rates" (sentence case)
+
+### ❌ Page Number Format
+
+**Wrong:**
+- p. 234-245
+- pages 234-245
+
+**Correct:**
+- pp. 234-245
+
+## 6. Quick Reference Table
+
+| Type | Basic Format |
+|------|--------------|
+| **Journal** | Authors, "Title," Journal, vol., no., pp., Month Year. |
+| **Conference** | Authors, "Title," in Proc. Conf., City, Country, Year, pp. |
+| **Book** | Authors, Title, ed. City, State: Publisher, Year. |
+| **Chapter** | Author, "Chapter title," in Book Title, Ed. City: Pub., Year, pp. |
+| **Website** | Author. "Title." Site. URL (accessed Date). |
+| **Report** | Author, "Title," Institution, City, Rep. No., Month Year. |
+| **Thesis** | Author, "Title," Degree, Dept., Univ., City, Year. |
+| **Patent** | Inventor, "Title," Country Patent No., Date. |
+| **Standard** | Standard Title, Std. Number, Year. |
+| **arXiv** | Authors, "Title," arXiv preprint arXiv:XXXX, Month Year. |
+
+## Reference Management Tips
+
+1. **Maintain consistency**: Follow format exactly throughout
+2. **Verify all details**: Check author names, dates, page numbers
+3. **Include DOI when available**: Improves discoverability
+4. **Double-check URLs**: Ensure links work
+5. **Sort references**: Number in order of appearance
+6. **Cross-check citations**: Every [X] must have reference [X]
+7. **Use tools carefully**: Reference managers may have errors
+
+## Journal Name Abbreviations
+
+Use IEEE standard abbreviations:
+
+- Transactions → Trans.
+- Journal → J.
+- Proceedings → Proc.
+- International → Int.
+- Computer → Comput.
+- Magazine → Mag.
+- Communications → Commun.
+- Technology → Technol.
+
+Example: 
+- Full: "IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence"
+- Abbreviated: "IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell."

skills/academic-research-writer/references/SOURCE-VERIFICATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,415 @@
+# Source Verification Guide
+
+## Table of Contents
+1. Identifying Peer-Reviewed Sources
+2. Academic Database Overview
+3. Source Quality Assessment
+4. Predatory Publishing Warning Signs
+5. Verification Checklist
+6. Citation Metrics and Impact
+
+## 1. Identifying Peer-Reviewed Sources
+
+### What is Peer Review?
+
+Peer review is a quality control process where experts in the field evaluate research before publication. Legitimate peer review involves:
+
+- **Expert evaluation**: Multiple qualified reviewers assess methodology, validity, and significance
+- **Blind or double-blind process**: Reviewer/author identities may be hidden to reduce bias
+- **Revision requirements**: Authors typically must address reviewer concerns
+- **Editorial oversight**: Editors make final publication decisions based on reviews
+
+### Indicators of Peer Review
+
+**Strong indicators:**
+- Published in indexed journals (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed)
+- Journal describes peer review process on website
+- Established publication history (>5 years)
+- Affiliated with reputable academic organizations (IEEE, ACM, APA, etc.)
+- Selective acceptance rates mentioned
+- Detailed author guidelines for submission
+
+**Verification steps:**
+1. Check journal website for "About" or "Submission" sections
+2. Look for editorial board with institutional affiliations
+3. Verify journal indexing status
+4. Check journal's impact factor or citation metrics
+5. Search for journal in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or Ulrichsweb
+
+### Publication Types by Peer Review Status
+
+**Peer-Reviewed:**
+- Academic journal articles
+- Conference papers from major conferences
+- Book chapters in academic publishers
+- Doctoral dissertations (university-reviewed)
+
+**Not Peer-Reviewed (use cautiously):**
+- Newspaper articles
+- Magazine articles
+- Blog posts
+- White papers
+- Technical documentation
+- Preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv) - not yet peer-reviewed but may be acceptable in fast-moving fields
+- Books (generally not peer-reviewed in same way)
+
+**Gray area:**
+- Conference abstracts (minimal review)
+- Posters (limited review)
+- Workshop papers (varies by venue)
+- Technical reports (institutional review, not external peer review)
+
+## 2. Academic Database Overview
+
+### General Interdisciplinary
+
+**Google Scholar (scholar.google.com)**
+- Scope: All academic disciplines
+- Coverage: Broadest, includes preprints, theses, books
+- Strengths: Comprehensive, easy to use, citation tracking
+- Limitations: No quality filter, includes predatory journals
+- Best for: Initial broad searches, finding recent work
+
+**Web of Science**
+- Scope: Selective across all disciplines
+- Coverage: High-quality journals only
+- Strengths: Quality control, citation analysis, impact factors
+- Limitations: Subscription required, more limited coverage
+- Best for: High-impact research, citation metrics
+
+**Scopus**
+- Scope: All academic disciplines
+- Coverage: Large curated database
+- Strengths: Quality journals, author profiles, metrics
+- Limitations: Subscription required
+- Best for: Comprehensive literature review
+
+### STEM Databases
+
+**IEEE Xplore (ieeexplore.ieee.org)**
+- Disciplines: Electrical engineering, computer science, electronics
+- Coverage: IEEE publications, conferences, standards
+- Strengths: High-quality technical content, standards access
+- Best for: Engineering and CS research
+
+**PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)**
+- Disciplines: Medicine, biology, health sciences
+- Coverage: MEDLINE plus additional life science journals
+- Strengths: Free access, highly curated, MeSH indexing
+- Best for: Biomedical research
+
+**arXiv (arxiv.org)**
+- Disciplines: Physics, mathematics, CS, statistics
+- Coverage: Preprints (not peer-reviewed)
+- Strengths: Latest research, free access, quick dissemination
+- Limitations: Not peer-reviewed, quality varies
+- Best for: Cutting-edge research in physics/math/CS
+
+**ACM Digital Library (dl.acm.org)**
+- Disciplines: Computer science, information technology
+- Coverage: ACM publications and conferences
+- Strengths: Computer science focus, high-quality venues
+- Best for: CS and IT research
+
+### Social Sciences & Humanities
+
+**JSTOR**
+- Disciplines: Humanities, social sciences
+- Coverage: Archived scholarly journals, books
+- Strengths: Historical depth, high-quality sources
+- Best for: Historical research, humanities
+
+**PsycINFO**
+- Disciplines: Psychology, behavioral sciences
+- Coverage: APA publications, international psychology journals
+- Strengths: Comprehensive psychology coverage
+- Best for: Psychology and behavioral research
+
+**SSRN (Social Science Research Network)**
+- Disciplines: Social sciences, humanities
+- Coverage: Working papers, preprints
+- Limitations: Not peer-reviewed
+- Best for: Latest social science research
+
+### Discipline-Specific
+
+**ScienceDirect**: Chemistry, materials science, engineering
+**ERIC**: Education research
+**EconLit**: Economics
+**MathSciNet**: Mathematics
+**ChemSpider**: Chemistry
+**GeoRef**: Earth sciences
+
+## 3. Source Quality Assessment
+
+### Evaluating Journal Quality
+
+**High-quality indicators:**
+- Indexed in major databases (WoS, Scopus, PubMed)
+- Impact factor >1.0 (discipline-dependent)
+- Published by reputable academic publishers:
+  - Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, IEEE, ACM, Nature, Science, AAAS
+  - University presses (Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, etc.)
+- Long publication history (>10 years)
+- Selective acceptance rate (<30%)
+- Clear peer review process described
+- Distinguished editorial board with major institutions
+
+**Red flags:**
+- Excessive promotional emails soliciting papers
+- Promises of rapid publication (<1 month)
+- High article processing charges (>$2000) without clear reputation
+- No clear peer review process
+- Generic journal name ("International Journal of Science")
+- Poor website quality or multiple domains
+- Editorial board with no institutional affiliations or stock photos
+
+### Evaluating Author Credibility
+
+**Positive indicators:**
+- University or research institution affiliation
+- Multiple publications in field
+- H-index appropriate for career stage
+- Research funded by recognized organizations (NSF, NIH, etc.)
+- Collaboration with established researchers
+- Institutional email address
+
+**Verification:**
+- Check author's institutional webpage
+- Review publication history on Google Scholar
+- Verify current affiliation
+- Check for research grants and funding
+
+### Evaluating Article Quality
+
+**Methodology assessment:**
+- Clear research questions/hypotheses
+- Appropriate research design
+- Sufficient sample size
+- Proper statistical analysis
+- Acknowledged limitations
+- Reproducible methods
+
+**Content quality:**
+- Comprehensive literature review
+- Logical argumentation
+- Clear contribution to field
+- Appropriate conclusions from data
+- Proper acknowledgment of funding/conflicts
+- Well-structured and clearly written
+
+## 4. Predatory Publishing Warning Signs
+
+### What is Predatory Publishing?
+
+Predatory publishers exploit open-access model by charging fees without providing proper peer review or editorial services. They harm research integrity by:
+- Publishing low-quality or fraudulent research
+- Misleading researchers about journal quality
+- Damaging researcher reputations
+- Contaminating academic literature
+
+### Warning Signs
+
+**Journal-level red flags:**
+
+1. **Aggressive solicitation**: Excessive spam emails inviting submissions
+2. **Rapid publication promises**: Guaranteed acceptance within weeks
+3. **Generic naming**: "International Journal of Advanced Research"
+4. **Misleading metrics**: Fake impact factors or made-up indices
+5. **Unclear peer review**: No description of review process
+6. **High fees, low service**: Expensive APCs without quality services
+7. **Poor website**: Grammar errors, broken links, stock photos
+8. **Fake editorial boards**: Non-existent people or unauthorized use of names
+9. **Lack of indexing**: Not in major databases (WoS, Scopus, DOAJ)
+10. **Address inconsistencies**: Multiple addresses, PO boxes only
+
+**Submission red flags:**
+- Instant acceptance letters
+- No reviewer comments
+- Request for payment immediately after submission
+- Editors who don't respond to queries
+- No retraction policy
+- Copyright assignment unclear
+
+### Verification Resources
+
+**Check these resources:**
+
+1. **Think.Check.Submit** (thinkchecksubmit.org)
+   - Checklist for evaluating journals
+   
+2. **Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)** (doaj.org)
+   - Whitelist of legitimate OA journals
+   
+3. **Cabells Predatory Reports** (subscription)
+   - Blacklist of predatory journals
+   
+4. **Web of Science Master Journal List**
+   - Indexed legitimate journals
+   
+5. **Scopus Source List**
+   - Indexed legitimate journals
+   
+6. **Journal Citation Reports**
+   - Impact factors for legitimate journals
+
+**Historical note:**
+- Beall's List (discontinued 2017) was a prominent predatory journal list
+- Some archives exist but use with caution as they're outdated
+
+## 5. Verification Checklist
+
+### Quick Verification Protocol
+
+For each source, verify:
+
+**Level 1 - Basic Verification (Required for all sources):**
+- [ ] Published in identifiable journal/venue
+- [ ] Authors have institutional affiliations
+- [ ] Year of publication clear
+- [ ] Peer-review status determinable
+
+**Level 2 - Quality Verification (Required for key sources):**
+- [ ] Journal indexed in major database (verify on WoS/Scopus)
+- [ ] Journal has impact factor or citation metrics
+- [ ] Publisher is reputable
+- [ ] Editorial board exists with real, affiliated researchers
+- [ ] Peer review process described
+- [ ] Author credentials verifiable
+
+**Level 3 - Content Verification (Required for controversial/critical claims):**
+- [ ] Methodology appropriate and clearly described
+- [ ] Results support conclusions
+- [ ] Limitations acknowledged
+- [ ] Conflicts of interest disclosed
+- [ ] Data availability stated
+- [ ] Ethical approval mentioned (if human/animal research)
+
+**Level 4 - Impact Verification (For establishing importance):**
+- [ ] Citation count appropriate for publication date
+- [ ] Cited by other peer-reviewed sources
+- [ ] Part of ongoing research conversation
+- [ ] Findings replicated or confirmed (if applicable)
+
+### Red Flag Scoring
+
+Assign concern levels:
+
+**High concern (Do not use):**
+- 3+ predatory indicators
+- No verifiable peer review
+- Anonymous or fake authors
+- Retracted or disputed findings
+
+**Moderate concern (Use with caution):**
+- 1-2 predatory indicators
+- Limited citation or impact
+- Unclear methodology
+- Preliminary findings only
+
+**Low concern (Generally acceptable):**
+- Established journal
+- Clear peer review
+- Verified authors
+- Appropriate methodology
+
+## 6. Citation Metrics and Impact
+
+### Understanding Citation Metrics
+
+**Journal Impact Factor (JIF):**
+- Average citations per article in previous 2 years
+- Discipline-dependent (compare within field)
+- Physics/Medicine: 3-5 = good, >10 = excellent
+- Social Sciences: 1-2 = good, >5 = excellent
+- Limitations: Can be manipulated, favors review articles
+
+**H-Index (Author metric):**
+- H papers with at least H citations each
+- Career-stage dependent
+- New researcher: 5-10
+- Mid-career: 15-30
+- Senior researcher: 30+
+- Limitations: Favors older researchers, quantity over quality
+
+**CiteScore:**
+- Citations in year X to papers published in years X-3
+- Alternative to Impact Factor
+- Generally higher numbers than JIF
+
+**SJR (SCImago Journal Rank):**
+- Weighted citation metric (prestigious journals count more)
+- Alternative quality indicator
+
+### Using Metrics Appropriately
+
+**Do:**
+- Compare within same discipline
+- Consider multiple metrics
+- Account for article age (older = more time for citations)
+- Use as one quality indicator among many
+
+**Don't:**
+- Rely solely on metrics
+- Compare across disciplines
+- Assume high citations = truth
+- Ignore recent, potentially important work
+
+### Alternative Impact Indicators
+
+**Article-level metrics:**
+- Download counts
+- Altmetrics (social media mentions, news coverage)
+- Post-publication peer review
+
+**Journal-level alternatives:**
+- Acceptance rates
+- Time to publication
+- Editorial board quality
+- Publisher reputation
+
+## Best Practices Summary
+
+### Before Using a Source:
+
+1. **Verify venue**: Check if journal/conference is indexed
+2. **Check authors**: Confirm institutional affiliations
+3. **Assess peer review**: Ensure proper review process
+4. **Evaluate content**: Review methodology and conclusions
+5. **Cross-reference**: Find corroborating sources
+6. **Check citations**: See if others cite this work positively
+
+### When in Doubt:
+
+- Search for journal in DOAJ or WoS
+- Check if other researchers cite this work
+- Look for author's other publications
+- Ask librarian or subject expert
+- Use higher-standard source instead
+
+### Document Your Process:
+
+- Keep notes on verification steps
+- Record database searches conducted
+- Note why sources included/excluded
+- Maintain audit trail for thesis/dissertation
+
+## Common Questions
+
+**Q: Can I use preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv)?**
+A: In fast-moving fields (CS, physics), preprints acceptable but note "preprint" status. Prefer published versions when available.
+
+**Q: How recent should sources be?**
+A: Generally last 5-7 years, but depends on field. Foundational older work appropriate. Rapidly evolving fields need more recent sources.
+
+**Q: What if I can't verify a source?**
+A: Don't use it. Find alternative verified sources instead.
+
+**Q: Are all Google Scholar results acceptable?**
+A: No. Google Scholar includes predatory journals, theses, and non-peer-reviewed work. Always verify independently.
+
+**Q: Can I cite Wikipedia?**
+A: No for academic papers. Use Wikipedia to find original sources, then cite those directly.
+
+**Q: What about conference papers vs. journals?**
+A: Top-tier conferences (especially in CS) equivalent to journals. Lower-tier conferences less rigorous. Check conference ranking.