I use targeted ChatGPT prompts as a force multiplier, turning messy reading lists into clear questions, gaps, and next steps. The five prompts below are structured to turbocharge a research workflow from scoping a field to designing fundable projects, while keeping you in control of judgment and rigor.
“Define the Objective” scoping prompt
I start any serious project with a “Define the Objective” prompt that forces me to spell out my research goal, audience, and deliverable. Guidance on research prompting stresses that you should explicitly state, “Let us start by defining the objective,” then clarify what success looks like before asking the model to help you Develop a testable Hypothesis. That structure keeps the model from wandering into generic summaries and instead orients it toward the exact decision or output I need.
Once the objective is clear, I ask for a short list of sub‑questions, required data types, and likely constraints. This turns a vague idea into a concrete research plan that I can refine with my own domain expertise. For stakeholders such as supervisors or clients, a clearly defined objective and Hypothesis also makes it easier to justify scope, timelines, and methods before anyone spends time collecting the wrong evidence.
Chronological “Provide and Focus” field map
To get rapid situational awareness in a new area, I use a chronological mapping prompt built around the verbs “Provide” and “Focus.” I ask ChatGPT to “Provide a chronological overview of landmark publications in this field and Focus on papers that marked a turning point, introduced new methods, or shifted consensus,” mirroring the structure recommended in field overviews. This yields a time‑ordered list of studies, each tagged with its main contribution.
With that scaffold, I then ask for short notes on how each turning point changed practice or theory, which makes it easier to see where current debates come from. For policy teams or product managers, this kind of historical map clarifies why certain assumptions are entrenched and where disruptive ideas have previously succeeded, so they can position new work in a credible lineage instead of reinventing old arguments.
Literature Review Prompts for the 5 C’s
When I am drafting a review, I rely on structured Literature Review Prompts that tell ChatGPT exactly how to process a batch of papers. I will paste abstracts and ask it to Summarize key findings, then Identify the most cited authors and recurring methods, following templates that group tasks under Literature Review Prompts. I then layer in the classic 5 C’s of a literature review, asking the model to help me with citing, comparing, contrasting, critiquing, and connecting the studies.
This workflow does not replace my own reading, but it accelerates pattern spotting and reduces the risk of missing obvious clusters or contradictions. For graduate students or analysts facing tight deadlines, having ChatGPT pre‑organize sources around the 5 C’s means more time can be spent on interpretation and less on mechanical note taking, while still keeping the final judgment firmly in human hands.
“Gap Finder” Identifying Research Opportunities
To move from synthesis to originality, I use a Gap Finder prompt explicitly aimed at Identifying Research Opportunities. I instruct the model, “From these sources, list four gaps and propose an experiment for each,” echoing the Prompt that turns a reading list into concrete next steps. Each suggested gap is tied to specific citations, which I then verify manually and refine into realistic designs.
A related pattern, described as a GAP FINDER Research Opportunity Identifier, asks the model to Analyze a set of sources and identify four significant research opportunities that are theoretically grounded, practically applicable, and fundable, as outlined in a Research Opportunity Identifier. For principal investigators or innovation leads, this kind of structured ideation can surface overlooked niches and sharpen grant proposals, while still requiring rigorous feasibility checks.
Flexible and Customizable cross‑disciplinary analyzer
For projects that span multiple domains, I rely on a Flexible and Customizable analysis prompt that treats ChatGPT as a cross‑disciplinary reader. I specify that Whether I am exploring a specific field or working across disciplines, the model should adapt its criteria to my research questions and objectives, an approach highlighted in guidance on Flexible and Customizable prompts. I then ask it to flag where disciplinary assumptions clash, such as different definitions of “causality” or “fairness.”
This style of prompt is especially powerful for teams that must integrate social science, engineering, and legal perspectives into a single product or policy. By making the model explain how each field would critique the same evidence, I can anticipate stakeholder objections earlier, streamline meeting agendas, and, in the spirit of “What do you want ChatGPT to help you do?” use it to Optimize my preparation and Streamline the way I present trade‑offs, as suggested in What style prompt books.
More from Morning Overview