Skill: Academic Thesis Review (Chinese Master's Thesis)#

Description#

Multi-round academic review of Chinese Master's theses (硕士学位论文). Uses a 3-round review strategy (macro → per-chapter → inter-chapter consistency). Acts as a strict professor reviewer, producing actionable revision comments in Chinese. Supports iterative version cycles.

Trigger Phrases#

• "审阅论文" / "review thesis"
• "论文评审" / "学术评审"
• "帮我看看论文" / "论文有什么问题"
• "再做一轮审阅" / "修改后再看看"

Prerequisites#

• Thesis file in .docx format
• Python available for text extraction (zipfile + xml.etree.ElementTree)
• If review_results.md exists in the working directory, iterative mode is triggered automatically (see Phase 1 § Prior Review Detection)

---

Part I: Rules & Instructions#

Core Rules#

Execution Order#

text

Round 1 ─┐                             ┐
         ├─ (parallel or sequential) ───├→ Round 3 → Consolidate → User revises
Round 2 ─┘                             ┘

• Round 1 and Round 2 have no hard dependency on each other. The agent may run them in parallel or sequentially depending on its own capabilities and context constraints.

  • Round 1: reviews the full thesis text. Output: macro structure review + chapter dependency map.
  • Round 2: reviews chapters sequentially in document order. Each chapter review has access to the summary cards of all previously reviewed chapters. Output: per-chapter issues + per-chapter summary cards.

• Round 3 depends on both Round 1 and Round 2 completing. It reconciles their outputs, then reviews chapter pairs. Output: inter-chapter consistency issues + pair coverage log.

• All 3 rounds review the same original text — the user revises only after all rounds complete.

Default Thesis Assumption#

Standard master's thesis structure: abstract → introduction → literature/theory → methodology → analysis/results → conclusion → references → appendices. No restriction on research topic, industry, or case type.

Non-standard fallback: If the thesis uses non-standard chapter names or merged chapters, map chapters by function: research problem → literature support → method design → results delivery → conclusion.

Conflict Resolution (authoritative — all rounds defer to this)#

1. Evidence first, then severity. If R2/R3 evidence overturns an R1 finding, the severity follows the new evidence — do not preserve R1's higher severity for a claim R2/R3 disproved.
2. If Round 2 and Round 3 disagree on the same finding, prefer the conclusion backed by more direct full-text evidence.
3. If multiple rounds independently confirm the same issue but at different severities, keep the higher severity.

Verification Types#

All review checklists use these labels. Defined once here; referenced throughout.

• [D] = directly verifiable from thesis text
• [S] = suspicion only — flag for closer look, agent cannot confirm
• [M] = requires manual verification outside thesis text (original Word file, source literature, or external facts)

Severity Rubric#

• 🔴 Immediate fix — threatens credibility, conclusion validity, or defense safety (data contradictions, unanswered research questions, method-result mismatch, clear factual errors, substantive cross-chapter conflicts)
• 🟡 Strongly recommended — weakens academic quality but not immediately fatal (underdeveloped argument, weak literature-method link, unstable terminology, loose structure)
• 🟢 Quality improvement — wording, polish, or refinement that does not affect conclusions

---

Phase 1: Text Extraction#

Extract plain text from .docx via Python:

python

import zipfile, xml.etree.ElementTree as ET

docx_path = r'<PATH_TO_DOCX>'
z = zipfile.ZipFile(docx_path)
doc_xml = z.read('word/document.xml')
tree = ET.fromstring(doc_xml)
ns = {'w': 'http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main'}
paragraphs = tree.findall('.//w:p', ns)
full_text = []
for p in paragraphs:
    runs = p.findall('.//w:r/w:t', ns)
    line = ''.join(r.text for r in runs if r.text)
    if line.strip():
        full_text.append(line)
result = '\n'.join(full_text)

Output to review_artifacts/thesis_full_text_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.txt. Create directory if it does not exist. Note paragraph count and character count as baseline metrics.

Preparation#

After extraction, prepare:

• Full text file — for Round 1
• Per-chapter split files — for Round 2
• Thesis summary block — title + full Chinese abstract + full English abstract + table of contents (~500-1000 chars), used as context prefix in Rounds 2 and 3

Chapter Splitting Rules#

• Split by top-level chapter headings (e.g., 第1章, 第一章, 1 绪论)
• Sub-headings (level 2/3) belong to their parent chapter
• Long chapter: read in subsection chunks during Round 2, but output one consolidated result and one summary card per top-level chapter
• Short chapter: flag as structure weakness in Round 2; do not auto-merge unless user confirms
• Ambiguous boundaries: ask user to confirm rather than guessing

Prior Review Detection (Iterative Mode)#

After extraction, check whether review_results.md exists in the current working directory.

Not found → First-version mode:

• Version = 第1版
• No prior issues to load
• Proceed normally

Found → Iterative mode:

1. Parse the prior review_results.md to extract:

   • Prior version number → increment by 1 for the new review
   • All prior issues from "本版问题清单" with their severity, location, and description

2. Classify each prior issue by its "位置" field:

   • Issues with location "全局" → redistribute to relevant chapters in Round 2
   • Issues with location "第X章" → Round 2 (injected in Phase B when reviewing that chapter)
   • Issues with location "第X章→第Y章" → Round 3 (injected when reviewing that pair)

3. Verification marking (applied in Phase B of Round 2 and in Round 3):

   • Issue is resolved → mark ✅已修改
   • Issue is partially addressed → mark ⚠️部分修改, describe what remains
   • Issue is unchanged → mark ❌未修改

Iterative Mode: Issue Injection Strategy#

Key Principle: Separation of Discovery and Verification

To prevent anchoring bias (agent treating prior issues as a checklist instead of performing independent review), the injection strategy is designed as follows:

Round 1: No injection

• Execute exactly as first-version mode (completely independent)
• Do NOT inject any prior issues, including "全局" issues
• Rationale: Issues found in Round 1 are typically also discoverable in Round 2/3; verifying global issues through specific chapters is more precise

Round 2: Two-phase per-chapter review

• Phase A (Independent Discovery): Review chapter with NO historical issues visible
• Phase B (Historical Verification): Inject chapter-specific issues + relevant "全局" issues for verification
• See §2.x for detailed Phase A/B execution rules

Round 3: Cross-chapter verification

• Inject cross-chapter historical issues (位置="第X章→第Y章")
• Execute spot checks on chapters that declared "无新发现" in Phase A

Anti-Shortcut Rules:

• ✅ DO: Complete Phase A output before seeing any historical issues. Use dimension coverage checklist to confirm systematic review.
• ❌ DON'T: Combine Phase A and Phase B. Skip the dimension coverage checklist. Claim "no new issues" without checklist evidence.

Extraction Limitations#

• Figures/images lost — only captions and in-text references survive
• Table structure flattened to rows of text
• Formulas may be fragmented or missing
• Cross-references (图X.X, 表X.X) survive as text but actual targets cannot be verified
• Headers/footers and page numbers not extracted

---

Phase 2: Three-Round Review#

Round 1: Macro Structure Review#

Input: Full thesis text. (In iterative mode: NO prior issues injected — execute as first-version mode) Focus: Bird's-eye structural and logical assessment. Do NOT give line-level edits. Long-input fallback: If the full thesis exceeds stable single-pass context, read in large sequential chunks with overlap, then do one pass over all Round 1 findings to ensure cross-chunk consistency before outputting the dependency map.

1.1 Reading Order

1. Title page & metadata
2. Table of contents
3. Chinese abstract + keywords
4. English abstract + keywords
5. All chapters — read sequentially for structural flow
6. References
7. Appendices

1.2 Review Checklist

ItemWhat to CheckTypeOverall structureChapter layout logical? Chapters proportional?[D]Research question → Conclusion chainAll research questions answered in conclusion? Any silently dropped?[D]Logic flowEach chapter leads naturally to the next? Logical jumps or missing bridges?[D]Terminology consistency (global)Key terms used consistently throughout?[D]Theory utilizationHow many theories introduced vs. actually used? Flag bloat.[D]CompletenessAll promised analyses delivered? Limitations discussed? Future work?[D]Factual self-consistencyDates, statistics contradict each other within the thesis?[D]Factual accuracy (external)Do named facts match known reality?[M] — flag suspicious values onlySection proportionalityChapters too short for their function, or too long and overloaded?[D]Innovation & contributionAre innovation points explicitly stated? Are they supported by the thesis body? Calibration: master's theses (especially part-time/professional) are NOT expected to produce high-level innovation. Applying existing methods to a new context or combining known approaches in a novel way IS acceptable — the key requirement is that innovation points exist, are clearly articulated, and are not fabricated. Flag missing or unsubstantiated claims, not low novelty.[D] for whether stated; [S] for whether substantiatedPractice relevance _(if practice-oriented)_Is the research grounded in a real-world problem or case? Does the thesis produce actionable recommendations, not just theoretical conclusions? Does it demonstrate problem-solving ability?[D]Abstract consistencyChinese and English abstracts match each other and faithfully represent the thesis?[D]**References (overview)**Format consistency, recency, relevance[D]

1.3 Required Output: Chapter Dependency Map

Output a chapter dependency map at the end of Round 1. This drives Round 3 pair selection.

Format:

text

章节逻辑依赖关系：
- 🔴 第1章 → 第5章：[依赖关系说明]
- 🔴 第3章 → 第4章：[依赖关系说明]
- 🟡 第2章 → 第3章：[依赖关系说明]
- ...

• A → B = A makes a promise / sets scope; B should deliver or remain consistent
• 🔴 = must check in Round 3 · 🟡 = check if evidence supports it · 🟢 = advisory, low priority
• Principle: 谁承诺，谁兑现，这两章就要配对。 See Appendix A for common patterns.

---

Round 2: Per-Chapter Deep Review#

Input per chapter: Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + summary cards of all previously reviewed chapters. Execution: Sequential, in document order. (In iterative mode: two-phase execution per chapter — see §2.x) Focus: Detailed intra-chapter quality. Line-level issues are caught here.

First chapter note: When reviewing the first chapter, no prior summary cards exist. Skip the "交付" field in that chapter's summary card.

2.1 Review Dimensions

DimensionWhat to CheckTypeData ConsistencyNumbers in tables match text? Actively recalculate totals, percentages, and derived values from raw data — do not just check whether they "look right." If raw numbers are available, verify that reported percentages/scores are arithmetically correct.[D]Internal LogicArgument flows logically? Claims supported? Logical leaps?[D]Methodology RigorMethod selection rationale stated and internally consistent?[D]/[S]Quantitative checks _(if applicable)_Statistical test choices, sample size, validity/reliability — apply only for quantitative empirical work[S]; definitive judgment [M]Literature ReviewResearch gap articulated? Key competing works cited? Gap justifies this study?[D] for presence; [M] for citation accuracyCitation adequacyMajor claims backed by citations? Unsupported assertions?[S]; whether source supports claim is [M]Language & StyleTypos, repeated chars (的的/了了), grammar errors (病句), punctuation misuse (中英文标点混用), inconsistent terminology, colloquial language in academic text, overly long/convoluted sentences[D]**Factual accuracy (internal)**Dates/numbers consistent within this chapter?[D]Factual accuracy (external)Real-world claims plausible?[S]/[M] — flag onlyChapter FramingOpening bridges from previous chapter? Closing sets up next?[D]Chapter Proportion & FunctionToo short for its function? Too long and overloaded?[D]

Proactive expansion rule: When the thesis uses a specific research method (survey, AHP, regression, case study, grounded theory, etc.), the agent must proactively apply that method's academic validation criteria — not just check the generic dimensions above. The agent's own domain knowledge is the source for method-specific checks; the skill does not enumerate them.

See Appendix B for chapter-type-specific focus areas.

2.2 Special Section Responsibilities

• Abstracts — Round 2: wording quality, terminology stability, grammar; whether abstract claims overstate the body
• References — Round 2: flag uncited claims or mismatched citations [S]; whether cited source supports the claim is [M]
• Appendices — Treat as a distinct Round 2 unit: questionnaires, interview guides, supplementary tables, coding schemes

2.x Iterative Mode: Two-Phase Per-Chapter Review

Applies only when review_results.md exists (iterative mode).

In iterative mode, each chapter review is split into two sequential phases to prevent anchoring bias:

Phase A: Independent Discovery (NO historical issues visible)

Input: Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + prior chapter summary cards

Output format (to review_working.md):

markdown

### 第X章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现

**审阅维度覆盖：**
- [x] 数据一致性：[具体检查内容，如"核算了表4.2共5处百分比，均正确"]
- [x] 内部逻辑：[具体检查内容，如"检查了论证链A→B→C，逻辑成立"]
- [x] 方法严谨性：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A - 本章无方法论内容]
- [x] 文献引用：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A]
- [x] 语言规范：[具体检查内容，如"未发现病句或标点问题"]
- [x] 章节衔接：[具体检查内容，如"开篇承接第2章结论，结尾为第4章铺垫"]

**独立发现问题：**
| 编号 | 严重度 | 问题 | 位置 | 类型 |
|------|--------|------|------|------|
| D-1  | 🟡     | ...  | L123 | [D]  |

*若未发现新问题：*
> 经独立审阅上述维度，本章未发现新问题。

Phase B: Historical Issue Verification (inject after Phase A completes)

Input: Phase A output + historical issues for this chapter (including relevant "全局" issues)

Output format (to review_working.md):

markdown

### 第X章 - Phase B 历史问题验证

**注入问题：** [#1] [#7] [#19-A]

| 编号 | 原问题概述 | 验证结果 | 说明 |
|------|-----------|----------|------|
| [#1] | Wilcoxon Z/p矛盾 | ❌未修改 | L1965仍为Z=-5.059, p=0.593 |
| [#7] | 研究问题未编号化 | ❌未修改 | L162-168仍为叙述式 |

**章节摘要卡（定稿）：**
[标准摘要卡格式]

Sequencing Rule: Phase A MUST be complete and output to working file BEFORE Phase B input is provided. The agent may NOT "peek ahead" at historical issues during Phase A.

Dimension Coverage Checklist Requirement: The checklist in Phase A must include specific descriptions of what was checked (not just checkmarks). This serves as verifiable evidence that independent review was performed.

2.3 Required Output: Per-Chapter Summary Card

Output after each chapter. Used by Round 3 for orientation and dependency map validation.

text

## [章节编号] [章节标题]

**核心论点：** 1-2句话
**承诺（本章对后续章节的承诺）：**
- [例如"将在第4章用AHP验证该评价体系"]
**交付（本章兑现了前序章节的哪些承诺）：**
- [例如"兑现了第2章提出的三层指标框架"]
**关键数据/定义：** 关键数字、术语定义、模型名称（供跨章核对）
**本章问题摘要：** 🔴🟡问题概览（1-3条最关键的）

During Round 3 setup, compare summary cards against Round 1's dependency map:

• Summary shows dependency Round 1 missed → add to Round 3
• Round 1 mapped dependency no summary confirms → demote or remove

Conflict with Round 1: default to Round 2 evidence (per Core Rules § Conflict Resolution).

---

Round 3: Inter-Chapter Consistency Review#

Input per pair: Thesis summary block + both summary cards + both chapter full texts. In iterative mode: also receives cross-chapter prior issues for verification. Pairs: Merged from Round 1 dependency map + Round 2 summary card validation.

Pair Selection Stopping Rule

• 🔴 pairs — mandatory
• 🟡 pairs — review only if summary cards show concrete promise/deliverable link or data/terminology risk; skip otherwise
• 🟢 pairs — skip unless user requests exhaustive mode

Coverage Transparency

Output at end of Round 3:

text

章节配对审查覆盖情况：
✅ 已完成：第1章 → 第5章（🔴，研究问题→结论回应）
✅ 已完成：第3章 → 第4章（🔴，方法→结果兑现）
⏭ 已跳过：第2章 → 第3章（🟡，摘要卡无具体承诺/交付链接）
⏭ 已跳过：第4章 → 第5章（🟢，未进入本轮）

Spot Check Mechanism (Iterative Mode Only)

Purpose: Validate Round 2 Phase A "无新发现" claims through targeted re-examination. Provides a deterrent against superficial review.

Trigger Conditions: A spot check is triggered when ALL of the following are true:

1. A chapter's Phase A declared "本章未发现新问题"
2. AND that chapter has historical 🔴 issues OR 3+ historical 🟡 issues

Procedure:

1. Select 1-2 subsections (500-1000 characters each) from the triggered chapter
2. Perform focused re-review on two dimensions only: data consistency + terminology consistency
3. Output result to review_working.md

Limits (Cost Control):

• Maximum 3 spot checks per review cycle
• Each spot check covers 500-1000 characters only
• Focus on 2 dimensions only (data + terminology)

Output Format (to review_working.md):

markdown

### 抽查验证

**章节：** 第X章 §X.X（L###-L###）
**抽查原因：** Phase A声明无新发现，但该章有历史🔴问题[#1][#5]
**抽查维度：** 数据一致性、术语一致性
**抽查结果：**
- ✅ 未发现Round 2遗漏的问题（支持Phase A声明）
- ⚠️ 发现潜在遗漏（需补充至问题清单）：
  - [问题描述]

Integration with Final Output:

• Spot check results are recorded in review_working.md only
• If spot check finds omissions, add them to the consolidated issue list with tag [抽查补充]
• review_results.md format remains unchanged (user does not see spot check details)

Reading Strategy (per pair)

Full-text reading of both chapters is MANDATORY. Summary cards are navigation index only.

1. Read both summary cards → understand expected promise/deliverable relationship and key data points
2. Read Chapter A in full → note claims, numbers, definitions, commitments
3. Read Chapter B in full → actively cross-check against Chapter A notes
4. Document all inconsistencies found

Long-input fallback: If a chapter pair exceeds stable single-pass context, read each chapter in chunks but ensure a final cross-check pass covers all noted data points and commitments from both chapters before concluding.

Pre-Round 3: Dependency Map Reconciliation

1. List Round 1's dependency pairs
2. Check each summary card's "承诺"/"交付" against Round 1's pairs
3. Produce final pair list: confirmed + newly discovered − demoted
4. Document changes briefly

Review Checklist (per pair)

ItemWhat to CheckTypeTerminology alignmentSame concepts use same terms across chapters?[D]Data/number consistencySame statistics, sample sizes, dates consistent?[D]Scope alignmentChapter B delivers what A promised? B introduces undeclared scope?[D]Cross-reference suspicion scanSuspicious 图/表/章/节 references or numbering jumps?[S]/[M]Logical continuityTransition makes sense? Logical gaps or contradictions?[D]

Cross-references are not a primary hard-check item — only flag suspicious cases for manual Word verification.

---

Phase 3: Consolidation & Output#

After all 3 rounds, consolidate into a single issue-centric document. Each issue appears once; originating round noted in brackets.

Output Files#

FileLocationContentreview_results.mdWorking directoryFinal consolidated review (user-facing deliverable)review_working_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.md``review_artifacts/Round 1 dependency map, Round 2 summary cards, Round 3 pair logs, all intermediate findingsthesis_full_text_<YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS>.txt``review_artifacts/Extracted plain text from docx (Phase 1 output)

Directory structure:

text

working_directory/
├── review_results.md
└── review_artifacts/
    ├── thesis_full_text_20260325_143052.txt
    └── review_working_20260325_143052.md

Notes:

• Create review_artifacts/ directory if it does not exist
• Timestamp format: YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS (local time)
• Working file serves as execution evidence and traceability record
• In iterative mode, each review cycle creates a new timestamped working file

Working File Structure (Iterative Mode)#

In iterative mode, review_working.md must include the following sections to serve as execution evidence:

markdown

# 评审工作文档（第X版）

## Round 1: 宏观结构审阅
[依赖关系图 + 宏观发现]

## Round 2: 逐章深度审阅

### 第1章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现
**审阅维度覆盖：** [详细checklist]
**独立发现问题：** [列表或"无"]

### 第1章 - Phase B 历史问题验证
**注入问题：** [编号列表]
**验证结果：** [表格]
**章节摘要卡：** [标准格式]

[...其他章节...]

## Round 3: 跨章一致性审阅
[配对审查记录]

## 抽查验证
[抽查记录，如有]

## 历史问题验证汇总
[所有历史问题的验证状态汇总表]

Key Points:

• Phase A and Phase B records must be clearly separated
• Dimension coverage checklist must include specific descriptions (not just checkmarks)
• Spot check records (if any) must be included
• This structure provides traceability for the review process

Consolidation Rules#

De-duplication: Keep the most specific/actionable version of each issue. Other rounds noted as supporting evidence only. When merging related-but-distinct issues, verify they truly share the same root problem — two issues that share a topic (e.g., both about Chapter 1) but target different defects (e.g., tone vs. evidence gap) must remain separate entries.

Conflict resolution: See Core Rules § Conflict Resolution.

Coverage verification (mandatory before finalizing): Before writing the final output, confirm that every distinct finding from all 3 rounds is either included in the consolidated issue list, explicitly merged into another issue, or dropped with a stated reason. No finding may be silently lost.

Iterative mode — prior issue handling:

• All prior issues verified by the rounds are collected here
• Issues marked ✅已修改 go into "修订情况核查" only (not into the problem list)
• Issues marked ⚠️部分修改 go into both "修订情况核查" and the problem list (tagged [部分修改])
• Issues marked ❌未修改 go into both "修订情况核查" and the problem list (tagged [延续])
• Newly discovered issues in this review are tagged [新发现] in the problem list

Persistent issues: If the same issue has been flagged across 3+ consecutive versions:

1. Acknowledge explicitly ("已连续N版提出")
2. Provide minimum-cost fix — exact replacement text + location
3. Assess defense risk
4. Version 4+: shift to "if you cannot fix, prepare an oral answer for defense"

Convergence criteria (assess and report in 总体评价):

• Zero 🔴 items
• All 🟡 either fixed or accepted with defense prep
• No new issues in full 3-round review
• Suspicious cross-references flagged for manual Word check

Output Template#

Template instructions (do NOT include these in the final document):

• §一 修订情况核查: include only in iterative mode (prior review_results.md exists). Omit entirely in first-version mode.
• §二 问题清单: contains ALL current open items (unfixed prior + partially fixed prior + newly discovered). In first-version mode, all issues are implicitly [新发现] and the tag may be omitted.
• §三 收敛评估: include only in iterative mode.
• [S] items must use uncertain wording ("疑似…""建议核查…"); [M] items must state what needs manual verification.

markdown

# 硕士学位论文评审意见（第X版）

**论文题目：** ...
**学位类别：** ...
**评审日期：** ...

---

## 一、修订情况核查

| # | 原问题概述 | 原严重度 | 修改状态 | 评价 |
|---|-----------|---------|---------|------|
| 1 | ... | 🔴 | ✅已修改 | 数据已更正 |
| 2 | ... | 🟡 | ⚠️部分修改 | 第2章已改，第4章仍有3处 |
| 3 | ... | 🔴 | ❌未修改 | 仍缺失 |

---

## 二、本版问题清单

**排序：** 🔴优先，同级别按影响范围（全局 > 跨章 > 单章）排序。

每条格式：
> **[编号] [🔴/🟡/🟢] [延续/部分修改/新发现] 问题标题**
> - **位置：** 第X章 / 第X章→第Y章 / 全局
> - **来源：** [R1] / [R2] / [R3]（可多项）
> - **验证状态：** [D]已确认 / [S]疑似 / [M]需人工核查
> - **问题描述：** 具体说明，引用原文
> - **修改建议：** 可操作的具体建议

### 🔴 必须修改
### 🟡 强烈建议修改
### 🟢 建议修改

---

## 三、总体评价

### 优点（3-5条）
### 整体结论与修改优先级
### 收敛评估

---

## 四、审查覆盖情况

### 4.1 章节配对覆盖（Round 3 coverage log）
### 4.2 人工核查待办（[M]类问题）
- [ ] [具体项目]

---

## 五、答辩提醒（可选）

---

Output Specification#

• Language: Chinese, with English terms where academically standard
• Format: Markdown (.md), filename review_results.md
• Tone: Strict but constructive — every criticism paired with a specific fix suggestion
• Priority: 🔴🟡🟢 consistently used across all rounds and versions

---

Part II: Reference Knowledge#

The following sections are reference material for the agent to consult during review. They are not execution rules.

---

Appendix A: Default Dependency Patterns#

Common dependency pairs for standard thesis structure. Use as starting point for Round 1 dependency map.

PairWhat to CheckIntroduction → Literature ReviewResearch questions fully covered by literature? Irrelevant literature present?Introduction → ConclusionEvery research question answered? Conclusion claims within intro scope?Literature Review → MethodologyConceptual framework operationalized in method? Method justified by gap? Terminology consistent?Methodology → ResultsEvery described method/instrument executed and reported? Undescribed methods appearing? Variable names consistent?Results → Discussion/ConclusionEvery finding discussed? Over-interpretation beyond data? Statistical conclusions match data?

---

Appendix B: Chapter-Specific Focus Areas#

Additional focus when reviewing specific chapter types in Round 2.

Chapter TypeAdditional FocusIntroductionResearch gap specificity, innovation points clearly stated and not overstated, stated framework matches actual thesis structureLiterature Review / TheoryTheory bloat (describe 5, use 2), citation format, gap analysis → methodology linkMethodologyRationale stated, internal consistency; (if quantitative) sample justification, validity/reliability, reproducibilityResults / AnalysisTable-text data consistency; (if quantitative) test choices, hypotheses; (if qualitative) interpretation grounded in evidenceDiscussion / ConclusionNo over-interpretation, all questions answered, limitations honest; (if practice-oriented) actionable recommendations for practitioners, not just theoretical implicationsEnglish AbstractGrammar, non-idiomatic phrasing ("Aiming at", "Firstly/Secondly"), keyword consistencyAppendicesAlignment with main text; (if survey) question design, scale coverage, response options

---