Used by draft_writer_agent (Step 1 pre-writing setup; Step 2 Introduction drafting; Step 3 title page assembly). Complements references/paper_structure_patterns.md (section architecture) and references/abstract_writing_guide.md (abstract composition). This guide covers the rhetorical work inside the Introduction and the title, not their placement.
The Introduction is a persuasion problem, not a summary problem. The reader must finish it convinced that (a) the territory matters, (b) something specific is missing or unresolved, and (c) this paper supplies it. Swales' Create A Research Space (CARS) model names these as three moves. Draft the Introduction move by move, in order.
Show that the topic is real, active, and consequential for this journal's readers.
Steps (use one or more): - Claim centrality: why the field cares now (policy pressure, empirical anomaly, methodological turn) - Make topic generalizations: what is broadly known or practiced - Review prior work: the specific findings this paper builds on, synthesized rather than listed
Discipline calibration: empirical social science leans on centrality + prior findings; humanities may open with a text, case, or tension; engineering often opens with an application constraint.
Anchor to materials: every Move 1 claim about the field must trace to the Literature Search Report. Centrality claims without a citation are decoration and will be flagged at the integrity gate.
Show what is missing, unresolved, or contested. This is the pivot of the whole Introduction.
Steps (pick the one that matches the evidence): - Indicate a gap: a population, setting, mechanism, or method prior work has not covered - Counter-claim: prior findings conflict, and the conflict is unresolved - Raise a question: known facts do not yet explain an observed pattern - Continue a tradition: an established line of work licenses a next step
The gap must be licensed by the review. A gap statement is only as credible as the Move 1 synthesis that precedes it. If the annotated bibliography does not support "X has not been examined in Y," soften to what it does support ("evidence in Y remains limited to Z designs") or return to literature_strategist_agent for a targeted search. Never manufacture a gap.
Avoid the universal-negative trap. "No study has examined X" is an unverifiable claim and a common desk-reject irritant. Prefer scoped negatives tied to a documented search — "our search of [named databases], covering [period and design scope], identified no..." — or positive framings of the limit of current evidence.
State what this paper does, in terms that mirror the niche just established.
Steps (in typical order): - Announce purpose: one sentence, active, specific ("This study estimates..." not "This study aims to explore...") - State RQs or hypotheses: verbatim the same RQs as the Paper Configuration Record, not paraphrases - Preview contribution: what the reader will know afterward that they do not know now - Outline structure: optional; many venues now cut it. Include only if the paper type template calls for it.
Purpose-sentence discipline: the purpose sentence is the most-quoted sentence in peer review. Draft it before drafting the rest of the Introduction, and check it answers the niche exactly. A Move 2 gap about "mechanism" answered by a Move 3 purpose about "prevalence" is a structural mismatch reviewers catch immediately.
| Failure | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Funnel too wide | Opens with "Since ancient times" scope | Start at the narrowest context that still shows stakes |
| Literature dump | Move 1 is a list of "A found X. B found Y." | Synthesize by theme or tension; cite in support of claims |
| Unlicensed gap | Move 2 asserts a gap the review never scoped | Rescope the gap or extend the search |
| Universal negative | "No study has ever..." | Scope it: database, period, design |
| Buried purpose | Move 3 purpose sentence hidden mid-paragraph | Lead the paragraph with it |
| Niche-purpose mismatch | Gap says mechanism, purpose says description | Rewrite the purpose to answer the stated gap |
| Findings leak | Full results narrated in the Introduction | Preview contribution type, keep numbers for Results (unless the discipline expects announced findings) |
A title does three jobs: retrieval (search engines and databases), screening (a reader deciding whether to open the paper), and framing (setting the claim's ambition level). Draft 3-5 candidates at Step 3 assembly and select against the checklist below.
Most strong empirical titles carry: key concept (front-loaded) + specifics (population, setting, or mechanism) + optional design signal (e.g., "a longitudinal study," "evidence from X"). Word budget: aim for 15 words or fewer unless the venue's norms run longer.
| Type | Shape | Norms and risks |
|---|---|---|
| Descriptive | "X and Y in Z context" | Safe default across disciplines; risk is blandness |
| Declarative | "X increases Y under Z" | Growing in high-impact science venues; the title becomes a claim, so it must carry the same hedging discipline as the abstract. Do not declare what the design cannot support |
| Interrogative | "Does X change Y?" | Accepted in social sciences and commentary; rare in engineering; some editors read it as hedging |
| Compound (colon) | "Catchy phrase: specific subtitle" | Common in humanities and social sciences; keep the pre-colon phrase informative, not merely cute |
references/abstract_writing_guide.md)Cross-check with the wording-pattern advisory: several AI-typical RQ shells double as weak title shells, notably "A study of X and Y" (WP06), "A comparative study of X and Y" (WP17), and "Toward a framework for X" (WP18) from the Socratic mentor's reference table. If a candidate title matches one of those surface forms, treat it as a prompt to name the specific mechanism, site, or tension instead.
| Weak | Stronger | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "A Study of AI and Higher Education" | "Generative AI in Programme-Level Quality Assurance: Evidence from 42 Taiwanese Universities" | Names the mechanism, population, and evidence base; survives the fifty-papers test |
| "Exploring the Impact of Feedback on Learning" | "Rubric-Anchored Peer Feedback and Revision Depth in First-Year Writing" | Replaces shell verbs with the actual instrument and outcome |
| "Toward a Framework for Teacher Wellbeing" | "Workload Rhythm, Not Workload Volume, Predicts Teacher Burnout: A Nine-Month Diary Study" | Declarative form carried by a design that can support it |
Examples are illustrative shapes, not field-verified claims; never reuse their content in a real paper.
Added for #500. The coverage gap (introduction rhetoric and title guidance) was surfaced by PR #485 (@lorenzo392), which proposed these topics inside a broader new-skill shape the suite declined. Content here was written fresh for this repo. Model source: the CARS model as introduced in Swales, J. M. (1990), Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings; a revised model appears in Swales, J. M. (2004), Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. This guide keeps the 1990 three-move structure and move labels but adapts the step inventory for this pipeline (e.g., Move 3 adds RQ/hypothesis restatement and contribution preview, and treats announcing full findings as a failure mode rather than a step).