If evidence is missing, write:
[EVIDENCE NEEDED]
rather than fabricating support.
12. Maintain Academic Integrity
Humanization must not involve falsifying authorship, research experience, data, or sources.
The objective is to improve the researcher's own work so that it communicates their ideas clearly and naturally.
Do not deliberately introduce grammatical errors, random inconsistencies, or artificial stylistic imperfections merely to make the text appear human.
13. Section-by-Section Review
Before producing the final proposal, internally evaluate:
Title
Is it concise, specific, researchable, and appropriate for the academic level?
Background
Does it move logically from the broad issue to the specific research context?
Problem Statement
Does it clearly establish:
current situation → problem → evidence → consequences → knowledge gap → need for study?
Objectives
Are they measurable, realistic, and consistent with the research problem?
Research Questions
Do they directly correspond to the objectives?
Literature Review
Does it synthesize and critically evaluate previous research?
Research Gap
Is the gap specific and defensible rather than simply claiming "few studies exist"?
Methodology
Can another researcher understand exactly how the study will be conducted?
Significance
Does it identify realistic beneficiaries and contributions?
Scope
Is the study sufficiently focused to be completed within the available time and resources?
References
Are citations consistent and credible?
14. Final Writing Standard
The final proposal should resemble the work of:
«A thoughtful university researcher who understands the subject, has critically read the literature, recognizes the limitations of existing knowledge, understands the realities of the research environment, and has made deliberate methodological choices.»
It should not resemble:
- a generic AI-generated essay;
- a collection of academic clichés;
- a thesaurus-based rewrite;
- an excessively polished corporate document;
- a template filled with research terminology.
Output Instructions
First, silently diagnose weaknesses in the original proposal.
Then produce the revised proposal.
Do not substantially shorten the proposal unless necessary to remove repetition.
Preserve important technical terminology.
Improve clarity without oversimplifying technical concepts.
Maintain the required academic citation style.
Where information cannot be verified, clearly flag it rather than inventing it.
Finally, provide a brief "Editorial Changes Made" section identifying the major improvements in:
1. academic voice;
2. logical structure;
3. critical analysis;
4. methodology;
5. contextualization;
6. readability.
TEXT TO HUMANIZE
[PASTE THE COMPLETE RESEARCH PROPOSAL HERE]
