The orchestrator for an ASR submission. ASR publishes across all of sociology and across very different methods, so the router's first job is to confirm the work has broad sociological significance and to send the user to the matching skill for their stage and method.
asr-rebuttal)| Situation | Type | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Full original study, broad significance | Article (≤ 15,000 words incl. refs + footnotes) | the main pipeline below |
| Critique of / reply to a published ASR piece | Comment/Reply (≤ 3,000 words) | tight scope; engage the original directly |
Then identify the method, because design and analysis advice differ sharply: quantitative/demographic · comparative-historical · ethnographic/interview · network · computational.
Idea / fit? → asr-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → asr-literature-positioning
What's the argument? → asr-theory-building
Is the design defensible? → asr-research-design
Are the analyses sound? → asr-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear? → asr-tables-figures
Does it read for the discipline? → asr-writing-style
Data documented / shareable? → asr-data-and-transparency
How will it be judged? → asr-review-process
Ready to submit? → asr-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → asr-rebuttal
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → data-and-transparency → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: ethnographic and comparative-historical papers especially loop theory ↔ evidence many times.
The router's value is matching a felt problem to the right ASR skill fast. Because the ASA flagship judges breadth of significance and method-appropriate rigor together, most symptoms map cleanly to one sub-skill — use this lookup before defaulting to the linear order.
| Symptom you arrive with | Likely root | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| "A reader says it's too narrow" | fit / framing | asr-topic-selection |
| "Reviewer says I missed key work" | cross-subfield positioning | asr-literature-positioning |
| "It's called merely descriptive" | no portable mechanism | asr-theory-building |
| "Reviewer doubts the causal/case logic" | design | asr-research-design |
| "They want more robustness" | analysis | asr-data-analysis |
| "An exhibit is unclear" | exhibits | asr-tables-figures |
| "It reads as subfield-only" | prose for the discipline | asr-writing-style |
| "How could anyone verify this?" | transparency | asr-data-and-transparency |
| "What will reviewers want?" | expectations | asr-review-process |
| "Submitting tomorrow" | preflight | asr-submission |
| "Got an R&R" | response letter | asr-rebuttal |
A user arrives mid-project with a comparative-historical study and a vague worry.
User: "I have four country cases and good archives, but a colleague says it 'won't fly at ASR.'"
Router read: the worry is breadth/portability, not data → start at asr-theory-building (extract the
portable causal logic), then asr-literature-positioning (general debate), then asr-research-design
(case-selection + adjudication), looping theory ↔ evidence as comparative-historical work demands.
Type: full study, broad claim → Article (≤15,000 incl. refs + footnotes), not a Comment.
Then: asr-tables-figures (evidence table) → asr-writing-style → asr-data-and-transparency.
The router resists the linear default and sends the comparative-historical case to the theory and positioning skills first, where its fit risk actually lives.
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Type】Article / Comment-Reply
【Method】quant / comparative-historical / ethnographic / network / computational
【Route to】asr-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
../../resources/external_tools.md — sociology data + software by method../../resources/official-source-map.md — official ASR URLs behind every fact in this pack