From 752c32949bf16a6d4a3ce0f3188de57ab34bd164 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Timothy Kassis <timothy.kassis@biostate.ai>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 10:47:44 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Add citation

---
 scientific-thinking/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scientific-thinking/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md b/scientific-thinking/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md
index 61ede84..daee96c 100644
--- a/scientific-thinking/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md
+++ b/scientific-thinking/scholar-evaluation/SKILL.md
@@ -227,3 +227,11 @@ python scripts/calculate_scores.py --scores <dimension_scores.json> --output <re
 - Some dimensions may not apply to all work types (e.g., data collection for purely theoretical papers)
 - Cultural and disciplinary differences in scholarly norms should be considered
 - This framework complements, not replaces, domain-specific expertise
+
+## Citation
+
+This skill is based on the ScholarEval framework introduced in:
+
+**Moussa, H. N., Da Silva, P. Q., Adu-Ampratwum, D., East, A., Lu, Z., Puccetti, N., Xue, M., Sun, H., Majumder, B. P., & Kumar, S. (2025).** _ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature_. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16234. [https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16234](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16234)
+
+**Abstract:** ScholarEval is a retrieval augmented evaluation framework that assesses research ideas based on two fundamental criteria: soundness (the empirical validity of proposed methods based on existing literature) and contribution (the degree of advancement made by the idea across different dimensions relative to prior research). The framework achieves significantly higher coverage of expert-annotated evaluation points and is consistently preferred over baseline systems in terms of evaluation actionability, depth, and evidence support.