lancet-workflow
GitHubLancet工作流路由器，用于指导临床或全球健康稿件的撰写与修订。根据当前阶段（如选题评估、研究设计、报告规范）路由至对应的lancet-*子技能，确保符合The Lancet的高标准及全球健康影响力要求。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill lancet-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "lancet-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which lancet-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a clinical or global-health manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for The Lancet. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
Lancet Workflow Router (lancet-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you which lancet- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at The Lancet.
Default assumption: unless the user states otherwise, the target is The Lancet (the flagship clinical/global-health weekly), not a Lancet family title (Lancet Global Health, Lancet Public Health, EClinicalMedicine, or a specialty journal such as Lancet Oncology). Family titles share house style but differ on scope and audience — flag the difference and route to lancet-fit if the user names one.
When to trigger
- "What should I do next with this clinical manuscript?"
- A draft arrives and you must diagnose the current bottleneck.
- The user is moving between trial conduct, writing, and revision and has lost the thread.
- Reviews arrive from The Lancet (including a statistical reviewer) and you need rebuttal mode.
The single most important gate
The Lancet rejects most submissions without external review. The editorial bar is not technical correctness alone — it is clinical or public-health importance, global relevance, and impact on practice or policy, often with an equity lens. So the first question is never "is the trial sound?" — it is "does this change practice or policy for a globally relevant problem?" Route to lancet-fit first, always.
How The Lancet differs from NEJM / JAMA / BMJ
- The Lancet — international and global-health-forward; an explicit advocacy voice; strong on health equity, public health, and policy; large multi-country trials; article types include Articles (original research), Seminars, Reviews, Comment, and Correspondence, plus the Lancet family of specialty journals.
- NEJM — clinically definitive, often US-centric, conservative house style; no Research-in-context panel.
- JAMA — clinical + health-policy, structured abstracts, strong methods/statistics editing.
- BMJ — open access, generalist, strong on EBM and patient partnership; "What this paper adds" box.
The Lancet's distinctive artifacts are the Research in context panel (with a systematic-search Evidence-before-this-study section), the Findings/Interpretation/Funding abstract headings, and the explicit role of the funding source statement.
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Not sure it is clinically/globally important enough to change practice | lancet-fit |
| Design/registration/protocol/SAP unclear; not yet registered | lancet-study-design |
| No CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA checklist or flow diagram | lancet-reporting |
| No Research in context panel, or it lacks a systematic search | lancet-research-in-context |
| Abstract unstructured, over 300 words, wrong headings | lancet-abstract |
| Main text over length; Discussion overstates; structure wanders | lancet-writing |
| Stats under-reported; bare P values; subgroups uncontrolled; ITT unclear | lancet-statistics |
| Table 1, Kaplan–Meier, forest, or flow diagram missing/non-compliant | lancet-figures-tables |
| No declaration of interests / role of funding / data sharing / SAGER | lancet-ethics |
| About to submit; need a preflight checklist + cover letter | lancet-submission |
| Received reviews / an R&R decision (incl. statistical reviewer) | lancet-rebuttal |
Default order
lancet-fit— clear the importance / global-relevance / policy bar firstlancet-study-design— registration, protocol + SAP, design rigorlancet-reporting— EQUATOR guideline + flow diagram for the study typelancet-statistics— pre-specified analysis, ITT, CIs, subgroupslancet-figures-tables— Table 1, KM, forest, study-flow diagramlancet-research-in-context— the signature three-part panel (systematic search)lancet-abstract— structured abstract (Findings/Interpretation/Funding) ≤300 wordslancet-writing— main-text structure and length; cautious Discussionlancet-ethics— declaration of interests, role of funding, data sharing, equitylancet-submission— preflight + cover letterlancet-rebuttal— after review
lancet-abstract,lancet-research-in-context, andlancet-writingare largely late-stage polish. Do not perfect the abstract before registration and reporting compliance are settled.
Decision shortcuts
- "This is solid but it's a single-centre confirmatory result" →
lancet-fit(consider EClinicalMedicine / specialty title) - "Enrollment started before we registered the trial" →
lancet-study-design(a serious problem — flag immediately) - "We have no CONSORT flow diagram" →
lancet-reporting - "We never did a systematic search of prior evidence" →
lancet-research-in-context - "Our abstract says Results and Conclusions" →
lancet-abstract(Lancet uses Findings / Interpretation) - "We report odds ratios but no absolute risk" →
lancet-statistics - "We didn't state who had final responsibility to submit" →
lancet-ethics(role of the funding source)
Worked routing example (illustrative)
A hypothetical multi-country RCT manuscript arrives mid-stream; the router resolves the bottleneck.
Symptoms reported:
- "We think it's a Lancet paper but we're not sure it changes practice" -> lancet-fit FIRST
- "Registration date may be after first enrolment" -> lancet-study-design (flag)
- "Abstract says Results / Conclusions" -> lancet-abstract
- "No Research in context panel" -> lancet-research-in-context
Resolved order (illustrative):
lancet-fit -> rung 4, GO
-> lancet-study-design (confirm prospective registration; reconcile primary outcome)
-> lancet-reporting (CONSORT + flow diagram)
-> lancet-statistics -> lancet-figures-tables
-> lancet-research-in-context -> lancet-abstract -> lancet-writing
-> lancet-ethics -> lancet-submission -> (after decision) lancet-rebuttal
Gate rule: never start prose polish before lancet-fit clears; the modal outcome is
rejection without review.
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
lancet-fitand start polishing prose — the modal outcome is rejection without review. - Do not draft the Research in context panel before the systematic search is actually run.
- Do not generate a rebuttal before the main text is actually revised.
- Do not treat the abstract or panel as optional formatting — they are load-bearing at triage.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:02
