# Pitfall pack: research paper

*Type-specific traps for research paper drafting. Loaded after WRITING-RULES.md. STYLE-GUIDE.md wins where it conflicts.*

## Argument hygiene

- Hedge stacks ("it may be argued that perhaps the data could potentially suggest"). One hedge or none.
- Claims that exceed the evidence. If the data shows correlation, do not write causation.
- "Significant" without a referent. Statistical significance, effect size, or substantive importance? Name it.
- "Robust", "novel", "first of its kind" without justification. Cut or substantiate.

## Passive voice and missing agents

- "It has been shown that". Show by whom, when, in which study. Cite.
- "The data was analyzed". By whom, with what method.
- Active voice is acceptable in modern academic writing in most fields. Check the target journal's house style; do not default to passive out of habit.

## Citation pitfalls

- Citations clustered at the end of a paragraph instead of attached to the specific claim they support.
- Citing review articles when primary sources are warranted.
- Citing the writer's prior work without disclosure.
- Citation laundering (citing a paper that cited a paper that cited the original; cite the original).
- Missing citations on claims that read as common knowledge but are not in the target field.

## Methodology traps

- Methods that conceal choices ("standard procedures were followed"). Spell out which standard, which version.
- Sample sizes without justification.
- Exclusion criteria mentioned in passing instead of in a dedicated subsection.
- Lab tooling cited without version or configuration.
- "Data not shown" as a substitute for actually showing it.

## Results section pitfalls

- Discussion bleeding into Results. Keep them separate. Results report; Discussion interprets.
- p-values without effect sizes.
- Visualizations that compress evidence into a misleading shape (broken y-axes, cherry-picked time windows).
- Tables that duplicate figures.

## Discussion section pitfalls

- Restating Results instead of interpreting them.
- Limitations as a single sentence near the end. Take limitations seriously; they are evidence of rigor.
- Speculative implications presented as findings.
- Failing to engage with conflicting prior work.

## Stock phrases to avoid

- "Recent advances in"
- "It is well known that" (without citation)
- "Surprisingly" (often a tell that the framing is weak)
- "More research is needed" (true but useless without specifying what)
- "To the best of our knowledge"

## Voice tics

- "We" when the writer is solo. Match journal convention.
- "Obviously", "clearly", "of course". If it were obvious, you would not be writing the paper.
- Sentences that start with "However" three paragraphs in a row.

## Closing pitfalls

- A conclusion that summarizes findings already in the abstract. Add interpretation, implication, or open question.
- "We hope that..." appeals.
- Future work bullets that read as an apology.