Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› asr-literature-positioning
asr-literature-positioning
GitHub用于将美国社会学评论(ASR)手稿定位为广泛的 sociological 贡献而非子领域笔记。指导在引言中框定跨领域的社会学辩论，精准命名理论缺口，并连接不同子领域的文献，以避免因缺乏广泛相关性而被拒稿。
Trigger Scenarios
起草或修改引言及贡献声明
审稿人指出未参与更广泛的辩论
子领域引用扎实但未连接至一般社会学
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill asr-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "asr-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when positioning an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a broad sociological contribution rather than a subfield note. Stakes the contribution in a debate that travels across sociology; it does not write the literature review."
}
Literature Positioning (asr-literature-positioning)
An ASR paper has to convince sociologists beyond its niche that the contribution matters. Positioning places the paper in a sociological debate — about inequality, culture, institutions, mechanisms — that a general reader recognizes, and shows precisely what the paper changes.
When to trigger
- Drafting or revising the introduction and the contribution statement
- A reviewer said you "missed key work" or "don't engage the broader debate"
- Your subfield citations are solid but the paper doesn't connect to general sociology
- Distinguishing your contribution from the closest prior studies
How ASR wants the literature engaged
- Frame a debate, not a citation list. Identify the live disagreement or open theoretical question your paper addresses, and cite the works that define it.
- Two audiences at once. Satisfy specialists (you know the frontier) and generalists (why it matters for sociology). The intro must make a demographer care about an ethnographic paper and vice versa.
- Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, under-theorized, or mismeasured, and why resolving it advances sociological understanding.
- Position the contribution as a move. "Prior work explains outcome Y via mechanism M; we show M is incomplete / conditional / better understood as M′."
- Engage the strongest rival account and preview how the design adjudicates it (hand to
asr-research-design).
Cross-subfield engagement (an ASR demand)
| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| an ethnographic case | the general theory of the mechanism it reveals |
| a demographic trend | the substantive sociology the trend bears on (family, work, inequality) |
| comparative-historical | the general causal/processual theory, not only area studies |
| a network/computational study | the substantive literature your structure or method speaks to |
Desk-reject and early-rejection patterns at ASR
ASR editors screen for fit before sending a paper out; as the ASA's general flagship they decline work that reads as a subfield note no matter how clean. These positioning failures most often draw an early decline.
| Pattern | Why it stalls at ASR | The positioning fix |
|---|---|---|
| "First study of X in setting Y" | descriptive, not disciplinary | frame the general mechanism the setting illuminates |
| Citations from one subfield only | reads as a specialty paper | add the cross-subfield debate it speaks to |
| Gap stated as "little is known" | no live disagreement | name what is contested or under-theorized |
| Closest competitor uncited | reads as evasion | engage the nearest rival; state the difference |
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
An ethnographer studies how gig-platform drivers contest algorithmic management.
Weak frame: "First ethnography of driver resistance on Platform Z" → subfield note, likely declined
Strong frame: enters the general debate on control and consent in the labor process; shows
algorithmic management reproduces an older managerial logic through new infrastructure
Move: "Prior work treats algorithmic control as a rupture; the case shows continuity with
conditions C1–C3" → a portable, contestable claim
The same fieldwork goes from a platform case study to a contribution another subfield can use.
Referee pushback → ASR-specific fix
- "You missed key work." → The miss is usually cross-subfield; add the general-theory anchor, not more citations from your own niche.
- "I don't see what this changes." → Restate the contribution as a move against a named prior claim ("M is incomplete / conditional / better understood as M′").
- "This belongs in a specialty journal." → Elevate the stakes sentence so a generalist sees the payoff before the case details.
Calibration anchors
- Two audiences, one paragraph. The introduction must satisfy the frontier specialist and convince a generalist in the same breath — the defining ASR positioning demand.
- Debate over inventory. ASR rewards a sharply framed disagreement that travels across sociology far more than an exhaustive but inert survey.
- The contribution is a verb. State what the paper does to the field's understanding, hedged when the move is a refinement rather than an overturning.
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump" with no organizing debate
- Engaging only your own subfield (a common ASR rejection reason)
- Strawmanning prior work or hiding the closest competitor
- Self-citation worded so it breaks masking (ASR allows self-citation, not self-identification — see
asr-submission) - "First to study" claims for an incremental contribution
Output format
【Debate】the live sociological disagreement / open question
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-subfield)
【Gap】what is contested / under-theorized / mismeasured
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】asr-theory-building
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— ASR scope and contribution expectations
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:22
