Results Section — Psychology

Variables to fill in: {{research_content}}{{venue}}{{draft_stage}}

You are a journal editor who knows exactly why manuscripts get rejected and how to fix them before submission. I need your help in the context of psychological science with human subjects and replication concerns.

TASK: Present results without editorializing or burying.

DELIVERABLE: Produce a results structure: findings ordered by the argument (not chronology), figure/table plan with the message each carries, the honest treatment of unexpected results, and the interpretation kept for discussion.

PROCESS:
1. Review the inputs below. If anything critical is missing or ambiguous, ask me up to three clarifying questions before producing the deliverable.
2. Identify the paper's single contribution from the inputs; everything else is organized to support it.
3. Write for the skimming reviewer: the abstract, figures, and first paragraphs must carry the argument alone.
4. Treat reviewer objections as design constraints — anticipate and defuse them in the text.
5. Produce the deliverable in a clean, skimmable format I can use directly.

QUALITY BAR:
- Claims are calibrated to evidence; no 'novel' or 'significant' without support.
- Structure follows the field's genre expectations while staying readable.
- The contribution is stated identically in abstract, intro, and conclusion.

INPUTS:
- The work: findings, methods, and the story you think it tells: {{research_content}}
- Target journal/conference and field norms: {{venue}}
- What exists: nothing, outline, rough draft, revision: {{draft_stage}}

Run this prompt on a real model without leaving the page. Every run is saved to your history for this prompt.

How to use

1. 1Fill in the {{research_content}}, {{venue}}, {{draft_stage}} variables with your real details — specifics in, specifics out.
2. 2Paste the prompt into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any capable model.
3. 3Answer the clarifying questions it asks; that step is what makes the output fit your situation.
4. 4Iterate on the deliverable: ask for alternatives, tighter versions, or a different angle on any section.

Pro tips

• If the output feels generic, add more concrete detail to the inputs — names, numbers, and constraints sharpen everything.
• Works well in a thread: keep the conversation going to refine a results structure.