Abstract, title, and fit to the journal
Lesson 3 of 6 · Manuscripts and reviewer responses
1 · Learn the move · Audience persona
An abstract is not a summary of what you did; it is the case for reading on, made to a specific reader - and each journal has one. The persona move: name that reader (the broad-readership editor scanning for reach, the specialist who knows the field's open problem) and draft to them, in the venue's actual abstract structure. Titles get the same discipline: three candidates, and under each, the exact claim that title commits you to - a title promising mechanism when you have correlation is an overclaim in the largest font on the page, and it is the first thing a reviewer tests. Fit is argued, never concluded: the draft makes the case for the venue; editors decide it, and the model should say that plainly.
Target venue: [journal]. Its reader: [describe, or ask me]. Abstract structure it uses: [structured/unstructured, word limit]. From my results summary [paste], draft: (1) the abstract to that reader and structure, claims no stronger than the results paragraphs I paste, (2) three title candidates, each with one line stating the exact claim it commits me to, (3) a hedged fit note - the case for this venue, stated as a case, not a verdict.
2 · Your turn. You write the prompt
The manuscript is solid and the lab is split between a broad journal and the specialist one that everyone in the subfield actually reads. Your current title says 'reveals the mechanism' and your strongest result is a robust association plus a rescue in one system. Abstract, title and cover-letter case all need to exist by Friday.
Remember: the AI sees only your prompt, not this page. If the situation isn't in your prompt, it doesn't exist.
Optional. These shape the output when you run your prompt below, not your score.