Worldwide Research Synthesizer (全球学术研究聚合器)

Description

A rigorous academic research synthesis skill that aggregates, cross-references, and critically synthesizes scholarly literature from global databases. It conducts structured literature reviews, identifies research gaps, tracks citation networks, and generates PRISMA-compliant systematic review outputs. Designed for researchers, PhD candidates, R&D teams, and evidence-based decision-makers who need comprehensive, unbiased literature synthesis across languages and disciplines.

Keywords: research, literature review, academic, papers, systematic review, meta-analysis, citation, scholarly, evidence-based, science

Triggers

• "conduct a literature review on [topic]"
• "what does the research say about [question]"
• "find papers on [topic] from the last [N] years"
• "synthesize findings on [research area]"
• "what are the research gaps in [field]"
• "track citations for [paper title / DOI]"
• "compare research approaches between [method A] and [method B]"
• "is [claim] supported by academic evidence"
• "recent breakthroughs in [scientific domain]"

Capabilities

1. Multi-Engine Literature Search

• Search across 6 engines: Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, PubMed, arXiv, SSRN, ResearchGate
• Support 10+ languages with region-specific academic databases (CNKI for Chinese, J-STAGE for Japanese, SciELO for Spanish/Portuguese, etc.)
• Filter by: publication date, citation count, journal impact, open-access status
• Deduplicate results across engines using title + DOI + author matching

2. Systematic Review Methodology (PRISMA-Compliant)

Follow the PRISMA 2020 flow:

Records identified through database searching (n=___)
Records after duplicates removed (n=___)
Records screened by title/abstract (n=___)
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n=___)
Studies included in qualitative synthesis (n=___)
Studies included in quantitative synthesis / meta-analysis (n=___)

3. Quality Assessment & Critical Appraisal

• Journal credibility check: Verify indexing in DOAJ/Scopus/Web of Science, check Impact Factor / CiteScore
• Predatory journal detection: Apply 6-point checklist from references
• Paper-level assessment: Citation count, Altmetric score, field-weighted citation impact
• Methodology rigor: Evaluate sample size, study design, confounding control, reproducibility indicators
• Flag retracted papers via CrossRef Retraction Watch integration

4. Synthesis & Gap Analysis

• Thematic synthesis: Identify and group recurring themes across selected papers
• Contradiction mapping: Explicitly document conflicting findings with paper references
• Research gap identification: Highlight under-explored areas, methodological limitations, and future research directions
• Temporal trend analysis: Track how findings and consensus have evolved over time

5. Citation Network Analysis

• Forward citation tracking (who cited this paper)
• Backward citation tracking (what this paper cites)
• Identify seminal papers (high citation count + high network centrality)
• Map author collaboration networks across institutions and countries

6. Output Formats

Structure every synthesis with:

1. Research Question & Scope (PICO framework where applicable)
2. Search Strategy (databases searched, query strings, date ranges, inclusion/exclusion criteria)
3. PRISMA Flow Diagram (record counts at each stage)
4. Synthesis Table (columns: Author/Year | Methodology | Key Findings | Quality Score | Relevance)
5. Thematic Findings (organized by theme, with supporting citations)
6. Contradictions & Debates (documenting scholarly disagreements)
7. Research Gaps & Future Directions
8. Full Reference List in requested citation format (default: APA 7th)

Workflow

User Query
    ↓
[Step 1] Decompose question → PICO/PICo framework
[Step 2] Construct search strings for multi-engine search
[Step 3] Execute parallel web_search across academic engines
    ↓
[Step 4] Deduplicate and screen by title/abstract (apply inclusion criteria)
    ↓
[Step 5] web_fetch top papers for full-text assessment
    ↓
[Step 6] Quality assessment → flag low-quality / predatory sources
    ↓
[Step 7] Thematic coding of findings → identify consensus and conflicts
    ↓
[Step 8] Synthesize with PRISMA flow + evidence tables + gap analysis
    ↓
Final Output: Structured systematic review with full citations

Usage Guidelines

1. Evidence hierarchy: Prioritize meta-analyses > RCTs > cohort studies > case studies > expert opinion
2. Publication bias awareness: Proactively search for null/negative results, not just positive findings
3. Open access preference: When paywalled, note the paywall but provide preprint/OA alternatives where available
4. Recency vs. foundations: Balance seminal older papers with cutting-edge recent publications
5. Language: Conduct searches in the user's language AND English (the lingua franca of science); note language bias explicitly

Examples

Query: "What is the current evidence on intermittent fasting's effects on longevity?"

Response Structure:

1. PICO: Population (adults) | Intervention (intermittent fasting protocols) | Comparison (continuous calorie restriction / ad libitum) | Outcome (lifespan/longevity biomarkers)
2. Search strategy: PubMed + Google Scholar, 2019-2026, English + Chinese
3. PRISMA flow: 847 → 523 deduped → 89 screened → 34 full-text → 22 included
4. Synthesis table with 22 studies, each scored on quality (Jadad scale for RCTs)
5. Key findings: autophagy mechanisms, NAD+ pathways, human vs animal evidence gaps
6. Contradictions: 16:22 vs 8 pattern debate, optimal fasting window unresolved
7. Gaps: lack of decade-scale human trials, elderly population underrepresented
8. Full APA 7th reference list

References

• references/academic_sources.json: Search engine catalog, open-access repositories, citation formats, PRISMA methodology, multi-language database mappings, quality assessment checklists （内容由AI生成，仅供参考）