Skill UI

A rigorous protocol for Chinese-canonical structural diagnosis of complex systems, organizations, or public disputes. It mandates separating facts, evidence, scale, and responsibility through a multi-stage internal reasoning process, ensuring deep structural integrity and comprehensive review before drawing conclusions.

This skill generates comprehensive, structured redline edits for Word documents. It captures insertions, deletions, and detailed margin comments, allowing users to conduct professional reviews (legal, copy-editing, technical). The output provides a detailed summary, top-level changes, line-by-line tracking, and clear instructions for applying revisions, ensuring the review process is systematic and actionable.

This skill is designed to review Chinese skill documentation to ensure it meets publishing standards. It systematically checks the clarity of descriptions and the executability of process steps, providing structured feedback in Chinese while maintaining necessary machine enumeration values for technical integrity.

A comprehensive guide detailing the double-blind three-review process for academic journals. It breaks down the complete workflow—from initial submission and editor screening to external review, multiple revision rounds, and final acceptance. The guide provides authors with actionable advice on preparing for each stage, managing expectations, and avoiding common procedural pitfalls.

This guide outlines the strategic approach for navigating the fast, decisive peer review process of AER: Insights. It details the single-round, conditional accept/reject model, emphasizing that papers must be submission-ready and objection-proofed upfront, as there is no traditional revise-and-resubmit cycle. Learn how to pre-empt major critiques concerning importance, robustness, and design credibility before submission.

A comprehensive guide detailing the intensive and rigorous peer-review standards of The American Historical Review (AHR). It covers the double-blind review process, the expectations of six or more scholars, the timeline, and the critical elements historians must include—such as historiographical intervention and source criticism—to increase a manuscript's chances of acceptance. Ideal for academics preparing submissions to top-tier history journals.

This guide details the multi-stage, rigorous review process for the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS). It covers the mechanics of double-blind screening, editorial fit assessment, expert peer review, and the unique, critical post-acceptance third-party verification step. It is designed to help authors anticipate and mitigate potential rejection issues by structuring and refining their manuscripts to meet top-tier academic standards.

Designed for advanced academic reviews, this framework guides the development of a unifying 'spine' that transcends simple literature summaries. It forces the writer to impose a novel organizational logic—such as a typology, process model, or integrating construct—thereby achieving genuine theory advancement and defining the field's future research agenda. Use this when the draft reads like a disconnected list of papers.

A comprehensive guide detailing the rigorous review process of major academic journals, using the American Anthropologist (AA) as a model. Learn about editorial screening, the requirements for four-field significance, anonymous peer review, and incorporating an ethics of care framework. This tool helps authors structure their manuscripts to anticipate and mitigate common rejection pitfalls.

This sophisticated workflow orchestrator is designed for authors submitting manuscripts to *American Anthropologist*. It acts as a guide, routing the user through the necessary stages—from initial idea selection and literature positioning to theory building and ethical review. It ensures the final work maintains a required anthropological breadth, integrating reflexivity and ethics of care throughout the writing process.

Provides a comprehensive guide to the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) editorial and peer-review process. It details the stages from desk review to final decision letter interpretation. Users learn how to distinguish between fatal and fixable concerns, prioritize the action editor's feedback, and strategically plan deep, multi-round revisions, turning feedback into actionable research improvements.

This guide helps researchers navigate and interpret the rigorous, multi-round developmental review process of the Academy of Management Review (AMR). It explains the core criteria (theoretical contribution, logical soundness) and decision signals, assisting authors in understanding editor priorities and triaging reviewer comments before drafting a response. It is a strategic guide for understanding the academic feedback process.