pubar-workflow
GitHubPAR投稿流程路由助手，根据稿件类型（如Scholarly Take等）和研究阶段，将用户引导至对应的子技能模块。旨在确认学术贡献与实践价值，不直接撰写内容。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pubar-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "pubar-workflow",
"description": "Use when starting or navigating any Public Administration Review (PAR) manuscript and unsure which skill applies. Routes to the right PAR sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and which article type (Scholarly Take, Conceptualizing PA, Early Career Intel, Practically Speaking, Public Administration in Print) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content."
}
PAR Workflow Router (pubar-workflow)
The orchestrator for a Public Administration Review submission. Figure out the stage and the article type, then send the user to the matching skill. PAR is the ASPA flagship that bridges research and practice — the router's first job is to confirm the paper carries a credible contribution to scholarship and a defensible "so-what" for public managers.
When to trigger
- Starting a new PAR paper and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Deciding which article type fits the work
- Returning with a decision letter (route to
pubar-rebuttal)
First question: which article type?
| Situation | Article type | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| Full empirical study, broad PA significance | Scholarly Take (research manuscript, ≤ 8,000 words) | normal pipeline below |
| Conceptual / theoretical or "state of PA" thought piece | Conceptualizing Public Administration | pubar-theory-building early |
| Research manuscript by an early-career scholar | Early Career Intel | normal pipeline, scope tightly |
| Practitioner–scholar co-authored, practice-driven | Practically Speaking | pubar-writing-style (practitioner voice) early |
| Book review | Public Administration in Print | out of scope for this empirical stack |
Whatever the type, Evidence for Practice (3–5 takeaway points for practitioners) is expected — encouraged at first submission, required at revision (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
Routing map (stage → skill)
Idea / fit? → pubar-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field? → pubar-literature-positioning
What's the argument / mechanism? → pubar-theory-building
Is the design defensible? → pubar-research-design
Are the analyses sound? → pubar-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear? → pubar-tables-figures
Does it speak to scholars+practice? → pubar-writing-style
Repro / TOP transparency package? → pubar-transparency-and-data
How will it be judged? → pubar-review-process
Ready to submit? → pubar-submission
Got an R&R / decision? → pubar-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis → tables-figures → writing-style → transparency-and-data → review-process → submission → rebuttal
Iterate: most PAR papers loop theory ↔ design ↔ analysis several times, and the practitioner "so-what" should be drafted alongside the contribution, not bolted on at the end.
The PAR bridge check (run before routing)
| Check | Pass condition | Route if weak |
|---|---|---|
| Scholarly contribution | A PA scholar outside the subfield (HRM, budgeting, governance) sees the advance. | pubar-topic-selection |
| Practitioner relevance | A public manager can name a decision the finding would inform (Evidence for Practice). | pubar-writing-style |
| Sibling fit | The paper is broad/practice-bridging, not a JPART-style pure-theory or JPAM-style policy-analysis piece. | pubar-topic-selection |
| Transparency | Data/code/qualitative materials have a TOP-compliant plan. | pubar-transparency-and-data |
If the paper fails the practitioner-relevance check, do not route to writing-style for polish — it needs a contribution repair, because PAR reviewers expect every article to earn its Evidence for Practice points honestly rather than tack them on.
Anti-patterns
- Treating PAR like a pure-theory venue (that is JPART) or a policy-analysis venue (that is JPAM)
- A finding with no credible practitioner takeaway — Evidence for Practice cannot be fabricated
- Forcing a quantitative template onto case-comparison or mixed-methods work PAR values
- Deferring the TOP transparency materials until acceptance
Output format
【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Article type】Scholarly Take / Conceptualizing PA / Early Career Intel / Practically Speaking
【Route to】pubar-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— PA data + software by method../../resources/official-source-map.md— official PAR URLs behind every fact in this pack
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:16
