Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› jacs-referee-strategy
jacs-referee-strategy
GitHub针对JACS投稿的审稿策略技能，指导选择独立且覆盖广度的推荐/排除审稿人，预判并化解关于严谨性、表征及创新性的常见异议，通过模拟苛刻审稿意见优化稿件，确保符合期刊高要求。
Trigger Scenarios
在Paragon Plus系统中选择或排除审稿人
提交前预判并化解可能的审稿异议
以挑剔审稿人视角压力测试手稿
准备回复修改意见时预测审稿人关切
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jacs-referee-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jacs-referee-strategy",
"description": "Use when suggesting\/excluding reviewers and pre-empting likely referee objections for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Plans the review-facing strategy — it does not run experiments or write the paper."
}
Referee Strategy (jacs-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- You are choosing suggested and excluded reviewers for Paragon Plus
- You want to anticipate and disarm objections before submission
- You are stress-testing the manuscript as a skeptical referee would
- A revision is coming and you want to predict reviewer concerns
Choosing reviewers
- Suggested: independent experts who can judge the chemistry — across the relevant subfields (e.g., a synthesis expert and a mechanism/spectroscopy expert for a catalysis paper). No collaborators, advisors, or same-institution.
- Breadth coverage: because JACS is broad-scope, include at least one reviewer who can speak to the general-interest claim, not only the niche.
- Excluded: only with a brief, professional reason (direct competitor with a conflict, prior dispute). Keep the list short and credible.
Pre-empting the standard JACS objections
Referees at JACS predictably probe rigor and significance. Address each before they raise it:
| Likely objection | Pre-empt by |
|---|---|
| "Not broad enough for JACS" | Lead with the breadth driver; cite cross-field relevance |
| "Compound X is not fully characterized" | Complete SI characterization + purity for every compound |
| "Purity not demonstrated" | EA or HPLC/GC trace + clean NMR for key compounds |
| "Mechanism is speculative" | Add controls, kinetics, KIE, or labeling; soften unproven steps |
| "Scope is cherry-picked" | Report failed substrates; show functional-group tolerance |
| "Selectivity claim unsupported" | Provide ee/dr with method and racemate/standard traces |
| "Crystal structure not deposited" | CCDC number + checkCIF-clean CIF |
| "Yields/conditions not reproducible" | Procedures with scale/equiv; replicate key results |
| "Over-claimed novelty" | State closest prior art and the specific delta |
Reviewer-simulation pass
Read the manuscript once as a hostile referee and write the three harshest
defensible criticisms. For each, decide: (a) fix now with data, (b) soften the
claim, or (c) prepare a rebuttal point. Carry these into jacs-revision.
Checklist
- Suggested reviewers are independent and cover the needed expertise + breadth
- Excluded reviewers (if any) have a brief, professional justification
- Each standard objection above is addressed or has a planned response
- The three harshest defensible criticisms are written down
- Unproven claims are softened in language before submission
- Prior-art delta is explicit, pre-empting "incremental" charges
Anti-patterns
- Suggesting friends/collaborators as reviewers (editors notice)
- Excluding everyone competent under vague "competitor" claims
- Ignoring an obvious rigor gap and hoping a referee misses it
- Leaving an over-claim in place that a referee will seize on
- No breadth-competent reviewer for a paper whose pitch is broad interest
Operating pass for Journal of the American Chemical Society
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the chemical novelty, characterization chain, controls, and scope or mechanism evidence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: chemistry reviewers who expect a molecule/material/reaction claim to be supported by rigorous characterization and mechanistic insight.
- Do the pass: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript locationrows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue. - Sibling guard: compare against ACS Central Science for broad conceptual reach, Angewandte for communication style, specialized ACS journals for narrower chemistry; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.mdhas been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Suggested】names/areas: synthesis [..], mechanism [..], breadth [..]
【Excluded】name — reason (brief)
【Objections pre-empted】[...]; planned rebuttals: [...]
【Top-3 hostile criticisms】1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
【Actions】fix-now: [...]; soften: [...]
【Next】jacs-submission (suggestions) → jacs-revision (after decision)
Related resources
jacs-cover-letter— where suggested/excluded reviewers are notedjacs-methods— closing the rigor gaps referees probe
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:00
