Rank each unreferenced claim by its role in the argument, its specificity, and the consequence if it is wrong, then search for primary sources for the highest-impact claims first and mark the rest as unresolved for the coauthor. This gives you a defensible order of work when time is short.
1. Score each claim on three axes
- Role in the argument: Does the claim support the central rationale, a specific aim, or a feasibility statement? A claim that props up the proposal's core logic outranks a background sentence.
- Specificity: A precise figure, date, effect size, or named finding needs a source that states exactly that. A general statement may be supportable with a broader citation.
- Consequence if unsupported: Ask what a reviewer would do if the claim had no citation. A claim that could trigger a credibility objection or undermine an aim ranks above one that merely adds context.
Claims that score high on all three go to the front of the queue.
2. Search for primary evidence for the top-ranked claims
- Run a title search in quotation marks for a distinctive phrase from the claim. Google Scholar documents title searches with quotation marks as a supported search mode. Expected result: a short list of candidate papers whose titles match the phrase.
- Run an author search for any named finding or researcher attached to the claim. Google Scholar documents author searches as a supported mode. Expected result: the author's publication list, which you can sort by date to find the version the claim likely came from.
- Use related-article and cited-by links on a promising hit to trace the claim back to the study that made it. Google Scholar documents both features. Expected result: either the originating study or a clear dead end for that search path.
- For bibliographic details, query Crossref's API with the title or author terms and apply filters to narrow the result set to the record you need. Crossref documents bibliographic queries and filters for retrieving and narrowing scholarly metadata. Expected result: a confirmed citation record or a narrower candidate list.
3. Mark what you cannot resolve
If a search does not produce a source that states the claim, record the claim as unresolved rather than treating the absence as proof it is wrong. Note the search terms you tried and the next verification step, such as asking the coauthor where the figure came from.
4. Hand off a status list
Give the coauthor a short table with each claim, its rank, and one of three statuses: verified with a primary source, qualified to match what the source actually says, or removed. This shows the coauthor exactly which sentences changed and why before internal review.