技能 编程开发 JAAR稿件工作流路由器

JAAR稿件工作流路由器

v20260724
jaar-workflow
该技能是为《美国宗教学院期刊》(JAAR)撰写和提交稿件设计的中心工作流路由器。它引导作者完成整个写作生命周期,强调“重构测试”,确保文章探讨的是对宗教研究领域具有普遍、根本性兴趣的问题,而非局限于某一狭窄子领域。它提供了一条从最初构思到最终提交和修改的结构化路径。
获取技能
397 次下载
概览

JAAR Workflow Router (jaar-workflow)

The orchestrator for a JAAR submission. JAAR's editorial office reads every submission and, before any peer review, asks one decisive question: does this article address a problem of "broad and fundamental interest to the study of religion" and reach beyond the sub-specialty it comes from? If not, the editor returns it for reframing before review. The router makes you answer that first.

When to trigger

  • Starting a JAAR article and unsure where to begin
  • Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
  • A draft reads as a contribution to one tradition/subfield only (reframing risk)
  • Returning with a decision letter (route to jaar-revision-and-response)

The gate before everything: the reframing test

Before drafting, state in one sentence what your article teaches the study of religion as a whole — not just Buddhist studies, or American religious history, or philosophy of religion. If you cannot, go to jaar-topic-selection and jaar-scholarly-positioning and reframe now; the editor will otherwise bounce it back unreviewed.

Routing map (stage → skill)

Idea / fit + reframing?           → jaar-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field?   → jaar-scholarly-positioning
What's the argument / "point"?    → jaar-argument-development
Texts, traditions, fieldwork?     → jaar-sources-and-evidence
Theory & method (reflexivity)?    → jaar-theory-and-method
How is the essay built?           → jaar-structure-and-exposition
Does the prose read well?         → jaar-writing-style
In-text citations + style?        → jaar-citation-and-style
How will it be judged?            → jaar-review-process
Ready to submit?                  → jaar-submission
Got a decision / R&R?             → jaar-revision-and-response

Default order

topic-selection → scholarly-positioning → argument-development → sources-and-evidence → theory-and-method → structure-and-exposition → writing-style → citation-and-style → review-process → submission → revision-and-response

Anti-patterns

  • Drafting a subfield-only article and hoping the editor sends it out anyway (it won't)
  • Treating JAAR like an empirical-social-science venue (no datasets/statistics/replication here)
  • Using footnotes for citations (JAAR uses in-text author-date; see jaar-citation-and-style)
  • Planning an unsolicited book review (JAAR reviews are commissioned only)

Output format

【Stage】fit / positioning / argument / sources / theory-method / structure / prose / citation / review / submit / revise
【Reframing test】one sentence on what it teaches the study of religion writ large
【Route to】jaar-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Symptom-to-skill dispatch table

When an author arrives mid-project with a complaint rather than a clean stage, route by symptom. These are the recurring failure signatures at the AAR/Oxford University Press flagship.

Symptom the author reports Route to Why
"A reader called it descriptive" jaar-argument-development Needs a contestable point
"Only specialists will care" jaar-topic-selection → jaar-scholarly-positioning Reframe for broad interest
"Told it's undertheorized / confessional" jaar-theory-and-method Make method load-bearing; redraw the about/for line
"Translation/source was challenged" jaar-sources-and-evidence Originals, provenance, representativeness
"Readers get lost in the sections" jaar-structure-and-exposition Throughline and signposting
"Footnotes for citations flagged" jaar-citation-and-style Convert to in-text author-date
"Identity visible in the file" jaar-submission Anonymize for double-anonymous review
"R&R letter arrived" jaar-revision-and-response Point-by-point, protect broad significance

Worked vignette: routing a stalled manuscript

An author says: "My essay on a Daoist liturgical manual is done, but a colleague said it only matters to Daoist-studies people, and another said the citations look wrong." The router resolves this in order:

  • Reframing test first. Can the author state in one sentence what it teaches the study of religion writ large? Not yet — so route to jaar-topic-selection (reframe around what the manual shows about the analytic of "liturgy" or text-as-ritual-object) and then jaar-scholarly-positioning.
  • Then the surface flag. The citation complaint routes to jaar-citation-and-style (footnote-to- in-text conversion) — but only after the Gate-1 reframing risk is handled, since style cannot save a subfield-bound piece.
  • Sequence out. From there the default order resumes: argument → sources → theory-method → structure → writing-style, then review-process and submission.

Router anti-pattern → correction

Author's instinct Correction
"Fix the citations first, then worry about framing" Clear the Gate-1 reframing risk first; style is downstream
"Skip positioning, my sources are strong" Strong sources don't establish broad significance
"Submit and let the editor reframe it" The editor returns it unreviewed; reframe before upload
"Plan a book review as an entry point" Reviews are commissioned only — not a route in

Hedged calibration: this router encodes the journal's stated gatekeeping logic (broad-interest screen, double-anonymous review, in-text citation, commissioned reviews) and the typical skill sequence; treat the ordering as advisory and confirm any process specifics against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Supplementary resources

信息
Category 编程开发
Name jaar-workflow
版本 v20260724
大小 6.32KB
更新时间 2026-07-28
语言