146 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
146 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
# Literature Routing with Zotero Notes and DeepSeek
|
|
|
|
Use this file when the user wants existing Zotero/Obsidian literature notes to
|
|
guide manuscript positioning, rewriting, citation planning, or reviewer-risk
|
|
analysis.
|
|
|
|
## Inputs
|
|
|
|
Collect as many as available:
|
|
|
|
- manuscript title, abstract, draft, figure captions, or key claims
|
|
- material system and aliases
|
|
- material family, device type, application, mechanism, and performance metrics
|
|
- target journal or journal tier
|
|
- Zotero collection, tag, saved search, Obsidian folder, or note source
|
|
- whether the notes were generated by DeepSeek/AwesomeGPT
|
|
|
|
If no target journal is given, ask the author. If they want recommendations,
|
|
open `journal-positioning.md`.
|
|
|
|
## Keyword extraction
|
|
|
|
Extract keywords in layers:
|
|
|
|
1. Exact material: e.g. `Ni-HHTP`, `MXene`, `BC`, `perovskite`, `MOF`, `COF`,
|
|
`Ecoflex`, `graphene`, `hydrogel`.
|
|
2. Material family: conductive MOF, 2D material, porous polymer, aerogel,
|
|
biomass cellulose, elastomer composite, metal oxide, sulfide, carbide.
|
|
3. Device/application: TENG, sensor, battery, supercapacitor, electrocatalysis,
|
|
photocatalysis, membrane, flexible electronics, photodetector.
|
|
4. Mechanism: charge transfer, ion transport, defect engineering, interface
|
|
polarization, hydrogen bonding, hydrophilicity, mechanical reinforcement,
|
|
piezoelectricity, triboelectric polarity, carrier separation.
|
|
5. Evidence: XPS, XRD, Raman, SEM/TEM, AFM, EIS, CV, LSV, tensile, fatigue,
|
|
cycling stability, humidity/temperature tests.
|
|
6. Target outlet: journal name, publisher family, impact level, audience.
|
|
|
|
Return a query pack:
|
|
|
|
- `must-match`: exact material, device, mechanism
|
|
- `should-match`: family, application, evidence type
|
|
- `context`: target journal, field, benchmark terms
|
|
- `exclude`: irrelevant homonyms or unrelated applications
|
|
|
|
## DeepSeek screening brief
|
|
|
|
Give DeepSeek a compact, structured task:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
You are screening my existing Zotero/Obsidian literature notes for a materials
|
|
science manuscript.
|
|
|
|
Manuscript profile:
|
|
- Material/system: xxx
|
|
- Material family: xxx
|
|
- Device/application: xxx
|
|
- Mechanism/property: xxx
|
|
- Target journal or tier: xxx
|
|
- Key evidence/figures: xxx
|
|
|
|
Screen the notes and return:
|
|
1. Strongly related papers: same material, same device, same mechanism, direct
|
|
benchmark, or same target-journal positioning.
|
|
2. Weakly related papers: same material family, adjacent device/application,
|
|
similar mechanism, characterization logic, or useful writing pattern.
|
|
3. For each paper: title, year, journal, DOI, Zotero key if present, relation
|
|
type, useful claim/evidence, and why it matters for my manuscript.
|
|
4. Do not include papers only because of a broad keyword match.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Strong vs weak relation rules
|
|
|
|
Strongly related:
|
|
|
|
- same exact material or named composite
|
|
- same material family and same device/application
|
|
- same mechanism tested with comparable evidence
|
|
- same target journal or immediate competitor journal with close topic
|
|
- benchmark paper that reviewers will expect
|
|
- paper that directly defines the gap or limitation being addressed
|
|
|
|
Weakly related:
|
|
|
|
- same material family but different device
|
|
- same device but different material
|
|
- similar characterization chain
|
|
- similar introduction structure or mechanism language
|
|
- adjacent application with transferable design logic
|
|
- broader review or perspective useful for field framing
|
|
|
|
Reject:
|
|
|
|
- title-only matches with no useful mechanism or benchmark
|
|
- papers outside the application without transferable logic
|
|
- notes with insufficient metadata unless the user asks to repair metadata
|
|
|
|
## How to use results in writing
|
|
|
|
Strong papers:
|
|
|
|
- define novelty and gap
|
|
- anchor Introduction claims
|
|
- support direct benchmark comparison
|
|
- guide reviewer-risk fixes
|
|
- decide which references must be cited near major claims
|
|
- provide DOI-only Word comments when the user asks for citation placement in
|
|
`.docx`
|
|
|
|
Weak papers:
|
|
|
|
- broaden first Introduction paragraph
|
|
- provide mechanism vocabulary
|
|
- support cautious analogies
|
|
- suggest missing controls or characterization
|
|
- inspire section architecture
|
|
|
|
## Output template
|
|
|
|
`Keyword pack:`
|
|
|
|
`Strongly related papers:`
|
|
|
|
`Weakly related papers:`
|
|
|
|
`How this changes the manuscript:`
|
|
|
|
`Citation/positioning risks:`
|
|
|
|
## Word citation comments
|
|
|
|
When the final deliverable is an annotated Word manuscript, separate internal
|
|
planning from comment text.
|
|
|
|
Internal planning may include title, authors, Zotero key, relation type, and why
|
|
the paper supports the claim.
|
|
|
|
The Word comment itself must contain DOI strings only:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
10.xxxx/xxxxx
|
|
10.xxxx/yyyyy
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not include explanations in the Word comment. Omit papers without DOI unless
|
|
the user explicitly allows title or Zotero-key fallback.
|