# Topic Selection Rubric

Score each topic on a 1-5 scale.

## Dimensions

### 1. Novelty gap
- **5**: clear under-addressed question with recent gap confirmed
- **3**: active area but angle is moderately differentiated
- **1**: crowded topic with no obvious new contribution

### 2. Data readiness
- **5**: all core variables and sample definition already available
- **3**: most variables exist but one key component needs extra work
- **1**: major exposure/outcome/validation asset is missing

### 3. Design defensibility
- **5**: method fits question cleanly and likely withstands reviewer scrutiny
- **3**: workable but assumption-sensitive
- **1**: design and claim are mismatched

### 4. External validation potential
- **5**: clear validation dataset or triangulation layer is available
- **3**: validation possible but not yet secured
- **1**: no realistic external validation path

### 5. Figure and table readiness
- **5**: likely 1-2 main figures and 2-3 clean tables already suggest themselves
- **3**: results could be visualized but structure is still fuzzy
- **1**: output would be narratively weak or visually fragmented

### 6. Journal fit and manuscriptability
- **5**: obvious journal lane, concise story, clear contribution
- **3**: paper is possible but positioning remains broad or messy
- **1**: difficult to frame as a compelling manuscript

## Recommended weighting

Use equal weights by default. If the user emphasizes speed or data completion, double-weight **Data readiness**. If the user emphasizes impact or novelty, double-weight **Novelty gap** and **Journal fit**.

## Output template

| Rank | Topic | Novelty | Data | Design | Validation | Figures | Journal fit | Total | Recommendation |
|------|-------|---------|------|--------|------------|---------|-------------|-------|----------------|
| 1 | ... | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 27 | Prioritize |

## Tie-break rule

If two topics score similarly, prefer the one with:
1. better data readiness
2. cleaner validation path
3. simpler reviewer story
