Templates

Research reading notes

Study Last updated:

Work through one research question with claims, source evidence, counterexamples, and open questions — the example keeps evidence and inference apart.

Template preview

Loads an independent copy without AI. Your current draft is saved locally so you can restore it or undo.

Who it is for

  • Students and researchers writing a thesis, literature review, or report
  • Analysts and product managers judging whether a report's conclusion holds up
  • Close readers who want their notes in a claim-and-evidence structure

Steps

  1. Write an answerable research question as the root and narrow its scope under "Research question".
  2. For every major claim you meet, add a node under "Main claims" with its source and the author's conclusion.
  3. Put verbatim quotes in note lines (starting with >) under "Source evidence", with page numbers and limitations.
  4. Look for "Counterexamples and rebuttals" on purpose — record evidence that cuts against your view too.
  5. Turn anything unverified into "Open questions" tasks, and update the "Working conclusion" as you check them.

Example

Dr. Okafor (fictional) has one week to answer whether remote work makes teams more productive. She parses two reports with the document-to-Markdown tool and pastes the key sentences, with page numbers, into the evidence notes. While sorting them she notices that nearly all supporting evidence comes from senior staff, so she adds "find data on new hires" as an open question and records the conclusion as "evidence insufficient, leaning toward a modest gain".

Names, companies, amounts and dates in templates and examples are fictional and for demonstration only.

How to use

  1. Keep quotes in note lines starting with >: the canvas stays clean, and Excel or PDF outline exports include the notes.
  2. After parsing a PDF with the document-to-Markdown tool, you can trace passages back by page number.
  3. State a confidence level in the conclusion so inference is never presented as fact.
Outline preview
  • Remote work and productivityExample: the reports, people, and figures are fictional and only show the method.
  • Research question
  • Core question: does two days of remote work per week raise a software team's output?
  • Scope: software companies under 200 people, observed for 6 months
  • Main claims
  • Claim A: remote days add focused time
  • Source: "Remote Collaboration Report 2025", chapter 3 (fictional)
  • Author's conclusion: 47 more minutes of focused work per day on average
  • Claim B: higher coordination cost cancels the gain
  • Source: interviews with two team leads (fictional)
  • Author's conclusion: cross-team requests take noticeably longer
  • Source evidence
  • Evidence 1: employee surveyQuote: "68% of respondents said they were interrupted less often at home." (p. 12)
  • Supports claim A
  • Limitation: self-reported, may overstate the effect
  • Evidence 2: ticketing system dataQuote: "Median first response on cross-team tickets rose from 3.2 to 5.1 hours." (p. 18)
  • Supports claim B
  • Limitation: covers a single quarter
  • Counterexamples and rebuttals
  • Counterexample: customer support satisfaction dropped after going remote (appendix B)
  • Possible explanation: support relies on in-person handoffs, so it may not transfer to software teams
  • My doubt: claim A's sample is mostly senior staff; there is no data on new hires
  • Open questions
  • ☐ Find a study that includes new hires · 2026-11-14
  • ☐ Check how the p. 18 figures were measured · 2026-11-07
  • ☐ Ask two team leads why responses slowed down
  • Working conclusion
  • Leaning: more focused time looks credible; overall productivity gain is not established
  • Confidence: medium until data on new hires is added
View Markdown source
# Remote work and productivity
> Example: the reports, people, and figures are fictional and only show the method.
## Research question
- Core question: does two days of remote work per week raise a software team's output?
- Scope: software companies under 200 people, observed for 6 months
## Main claims
### Claim A: remote days add focused time
- Source: "Remote Collaboration Report 2025", chapter 3 (fictional)
- Author's conclusion: 47 more minutes of focused work per day on average
### Claim B: higher coordination cost cancels the gain
- Source: interviews with two team leads (fictional)
- Author's conclusion: cross-team requests take noticeably longer
## Source evidence
### Evidence 1: employee survey
> Quote: "68% of respondents said they were interrupted less often at home." (p. 12)
- Supports claim A
- Limitation: self-reported, may overstate the effect
### Evidence 2: ticketing system data
> Quote: "Median first response on cross-team tickets rose from 3.2 to 5.1 hours." (p. 18)
- Supports claim B
- Limitation: covers a single quarter
## Counterexamples and rebuttals
- Counterexample: customer support satisfaction dropped after going remote (appendix B)
- Possible explanation: support relies on in-person handoffs, so it may not transfer to software teams
- My doubt: claim A's sample is mostly senior staff; there is no data on new hires
## Open questions
- [ ] Find a study that includes new hires <!-- due:2026-11-14 -->
- [ ] Check how the p. 18 figures were measured <!-- due:2026-11-07 -->
- [ ] Ask two team leads why responses slowed down
## Working conclusion
- Leaning: more focused time looks credible; overall productivity gain is not established
- Confidence: medium until data on new hires is added

Read guide: PDF to mind map, the real pipeline: parse → summarize → generate

Related tools