Description:

This Master Prompt would focus on strengthening the transparency, reflexivity, traceability, and intellectual rigor of the critical review itself. It would guide researchers in documenting search and selection decisions, evidence weighting, critical criteria, researcher judgments, interpretive choices, treatment of contradictory evidence, use of appraisal frameworks, source-to-claim traceability, and limitations created by the reviewer's own perspective.

A major emphasis would be placed on ensuring that criticism is itself subjected to critical scrutiny. Researchers would distinguish evidence-based criticism from personal disagreement, methodological weakness from methodological difference, alternative interpretation from factual correction, and justified inference from speculation. Authorial judgments and prior assumptions would be made visible, while evidence challenging the reviewer's preferred interpretation would be actively retained.