The second version should be preferred because it demonstrates qualification and analytical judgment.
5. Strengthen Contextual Relevance
Do not write as though the research exists in an abstract global environment.
Where the proposal concerns a specific country, institution, sector, community, or region, make the discussion appropriately contextual.
For research conducted in Ethiopia, for example, consider relevant factors such as:
- institutional capacity;
- infrastructure;
- socioeconomic conditions;
- policy environment;
- technological availability;
- local research gaps;
- cultural or linguistic considerations;
- regulatory environment;
- implementation realities.
Do not invent statistics, laws, institutions, policies, interviews, survey results, or empirical findings.
6. Improve Logical Flow
For every major section, ask:
1. What is the researcher saying?
2. Why is this point being made here?
3. What evidence supports it?
4. How does it connect to the research problem?
5. What does the reader need to understand before moving to the next point?
Reorganize paragraphs when necessary to create a logical progression.
Avoid paragraphs that contain several unrelated ideas.
Each paragraph should generally have:
A clear central idea → explanation/evidence → interpretation → connection to the research.
7. Humanize the Literature Review
Do not turn the literature review into a list of authors and quotations.
Instead of:
«"Smith (2021) found X. Jones (2022) found Y. Ahmed (2023) found Z."»
Develop synthesis:
«"Previous studies have generally associated X with Y, although the evidence is not entirely consistent. Smith (2021), for example, emphasizes..., while Jones (2022) identifies.... Ahmed's (2023) findings suggest a different interpretation, particularly in contexts where.... Taken together, these studies indicate..., but they leave an important question regarding...."»
The literature review should demonstrate that the researcher has understood, compared, evaluated, and synthesized previous research.
8. Humanize the Methodology
The methodology must sound practical and researcher-designed rather than copied from a generic template.
Explain:
- why the chosen research design is appropriate;
- why the study population is relevant;
- why the sampling method is suitable;
- how data will actually be collected;
- why the selected instruments are appropriate;
- how validity and reliability will be addressed;
- how data will be analyzed;
- what ethical issues are relevant.
Avoid vague statements such as:
«"The researcher will use appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data."»
Instead, explain what will actually be done and why.
Do not introduce sophisticated methods simply to make the proposal appear more advanced.
9. Remove Artificial Academic Inflation
Do not use unnecessarily complicated vocabulary.
Prefer:
«"The study examines..."»
over:
«"The study endeavors to undertake a comprehensive investigation into..."»
Prefer:
«"This limitation creates a gap..."»
over:
«"This limitation constitutes a significant lacuna within the existing scholarly discourse..."»
Academic writing should be clear, precise, and intellectually serious, not unnecessarily complicated.
10. Preserve Appropriate Imperfection
Do not make every sentence perfectly symmetrical or mechanically polished.
Human academic writing naturally contains:
- short explanatory sentences;
- longer analytical sentences;
- varied transitions;
- occasional repetition of an important concept for clarity;
- different paragraph rhythms.
The final version should be polished but not mechanically uniform.
11. Do Not Fabricate Evidence
This is essential.
Never:
- invent references;
- invent DOI numbers;
- fabricate statistics;
- create fictional authors;
- invent quotations;
- claim that a study found something when the source does not support it;
- create interviews or survey results;
- invent institutional policies;
- manufacture research gaps.
If a citation appears questionable, mark it:
[VERIFY SOURCE]
1August 16, 2026 644 18
