From project creation to completed, reviewable research work
Use one project and one canonical eight-phase lifecycle. Existing five-step workflow modules remain compatibility views; phase readiness and forward navigation come from the canonical lifecycle, not from page-specific UI rules.
The eight canonical lifecycle phases
The server owns phase state and transition permission. The UI presents readiness, blockers, revalidation, and the next backend-approved action.
Define the project question, objectives, scope, and working plan.
Compatibility workflow view: project planFind, evaluate, and save candidate research sources.
Compatibility workflow view: find saveApply the project screening criteria and record evidence decisions.
Compatibility workflow view: read reviewReview the included evidence and its limitations before analysis.
Compatibility workflow view: read reviewCompare and synthesize evidence into bounded analytical findings.
Compatibility workflow view: compare analyzeDevelop the discussion and research writing from validated evidence.
Compatibility workflow view: discussionResolve adviser or research-review requirements when a linked proposal requires them.
The guided research lifecycle has been completed.
Two ways to build the Project Plan
Enter or revise your own problem, objectives, and questions. The system may identify alignment issues, but your wording remains authoritative.
Choose the study intent, population, and setting. The system proposes a provisional, editable problem and aligned questions. You must review and confirm it before continuing.
Illustrative study blueprint
This is a planning example, not a completed study and not a claim that a research gap exists.
- Working title
- Study Habits and Academic Self-Regulation Among First-Year WPU Students
- Problem
- The levels and relationship of study habits and academic self-regulation among first-year students in the selected WPU setting require systematic assessment. Reviewed literature must first establish whether a context-specific study is justified.
- Questions
- What are the levels of study habits and academic self-regulation? Is there a statistically significant relationship between the two constructs?
- Objectives
- Describe both constructs and determine whether a statistically significant relationship exists.
- Direction
- Tentative quantitative correlational design; final instruments, sampling, and analysis require methodological review.
- Scope
- First-year WPU students at the selected campus during the declared academic year.
Quality safeguards used throughout the workflow
- Generated planning text stays provisional until the researcher reviews it.
- Only sources marked Use inform comparison and the final discussion.
- Metadata-only evidence is distinguished from abstracts and available full text.
- Missing methods, findings, page numbers, and citations are not invented.
- Notes are researcher interpretation, not automatically verified study evidence.
- Every citation, factual claim, design choice, and exported draft still requires researcher verification.
Troubleshooting
- Save & Continue stays on Project Plan.
- Complete the topic, problem, at least one question, population or setting, scope, and—when generated—researcher confirmation.
- A connector search turns red.
- Open the provider diagnostic details. A red state can mean missing credentials, an unreachable endpoint, a provider rate limit, or an invalid response. The system should continue with healthy providers when fallback is available.
- A source link does not open.
- Try the institutional access link, search the exact title, or report the broken record.
- A citation is incomplete.
- Verify the author, date, title, publication, DOI, and URL against the original source before export.
Documentation for V40.45.0 · Researcher responsibility and academic integrity remain required.