Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› asr-topic-selection
asr-topic-selection
GitHub评估社会学研究是否契合美国社会学评论(ASR)期刊，判断其广泛意义与理论贡献。辅助决定撰写全文还是短评，并提供跨子领域框架及拒稿风险信号分析。
Trigger Scenarios
选择ASR投稿项目或框架
收到'过于狭窄'的反馈
决定撰写Article还是Comment/Reply
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill asr-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "asr-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when deciding whether a sociology project fits the American Sociological Review (ASR) and whether to write a full Article or a Comment\/Reply. ASR is sociology's general flagship, so the test is broad significance and theoretical payoff across subfields, not novelty within one. Frames the question; it does not collect data."
}
Topic Selection & Fit (asr-topic-selection)
ASR is the discipline's general journal. The bar is not "new to my subfield" — it is "advances how sociology understands something important." Use this skill to pressure-test fit before investing.
When to trigger
- Choosing among possible projects or framings for ASR
- A reader said the paper feels "too narrow," "merely descriptive," or "subfield-only"
- Deciding between a full Article and a Comment/Reply
The ASR fit test
A strong ASR paper usually clears all four:
- Broad significance. A sociologist in another subfield should see why it matters — for inequality, institutions, culture, social structure, mechanisms of social life. State the stakes.
- A theoretical payoff that travels. It changes how the field explains something, not just what
we know about one case. A finding tied only to its setting is a fit risk (see
asr-theory-building). - Credible on its own methodological terms. Quantitative, demographic, comparative-historical, ethnographic, network, or computational — each is welcome, each must be rigorous.
- Answerable within scope. Sharp enough to convince within ~15,000 words (an Article includes references and footnotes in that count).
Subfield framing (write past your home subfield)
| Home subfield | Reach the discipline by… |
|---|---|
| Stratification/mobility | connect to general mechanisms of inequality and opportunity |
| Demography | draw out the social process, not just the rate or trend |
| Comparative-historical | extract the portable causal logic, not only the case narrative |
| Ethnography | theorize the mechanism the case reveals; say what it is a case of |
| Networks / computational | tie structure or method back to a substantive sociological question |
Article vs. Comment/Reply
- Article — full study, broad claim, ≤ 15,000 words (incl. references + footnotes).
- Comment/Reply — a focused, rigorous critique of, or reply to, a published ASR piece, ≤ 3,000 words. Engage the original on its own terms; do not smuggle a new study into a Comment.
Fit-screening signals (will an ASR editor send it out?)
As sociology's general flagship, ASR's editors screen hardest on whether the question reaches the whole discipline. Use these signals to predict the screening decision before investing months.
| Signal | Good fit | Off-fit / desk-reject risk |
|---|---|---|
| Stakes sentence | "changes how sociology explains X" | "no one has studied Y in setting Z" |
| Audience | a generalist sees the payoff | only the home subfield would cite it |
| Theory | a mechanism that travels | a rate, trend, or case with no "why" |
| Method framing | rigor serving a social question | a technique demonstration |
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
A scholar weighs two framings of the same survey-plus-interview project on remote work.
Framing A: "Remote work adoption among tech workers, 2020–2024" → descriptive, subfield-only,
high desk-reject risk
Framing B: "How remote work renegotiates the boundary between household and workplace authority"
→ enters a general debate on work, gender, and institutions; generalist stakes are clear
Verdict: B clears all four fit tests; A fails broad significance despite identical data
Type: a full study with a broad claim → Article (≤15,000 incl. refs), not a Comment
Same evidence, different fit: the contribution is in the question's reach.
Referee/editor pushback → ASR-specific fix
- "Too narrow for ASR." → Recast around the general mechanism the case illuminates; move setting details into support, not the headline.
- "This is a method paper." → Lead with the substantive sociological question the method answers.
- "You're cramming a study into a Comment." → A new study is an Article; reserve Comment/Reply for engaging a published ASR piece.
Calibration anchors
- The flagship bar is disciplinary, not subfield-novelty. "New to my niche" is not a contribution; "advances how sociology understands something" is the test ASR applies.
- Significance and rigor are joint requirements. A broadly important question still needs a design credible on its own methodological terms — both, not either.
- Confirm article-type caps against the journal's current submission guidelines if exact limits are decision-relevant; the Article vs. Comment/Reply distinction is stable.
Anti-patterns
- "Not yet studied in setting X" as the whole contribution (descriptive, subfield-only)
- A method showcase with no substantive sociological payoff
- A trend description with no theoretical mechanism
- A question too sprawling to answer within the length cap
Output format
【Question】one sentence
【Broad significance】who outside the subfield cares, and why
【Theoretical payoff】what general understanding it advances
【Method】quant / demographic / comparative-historical / ethnographic / network / computational
【Type】Article / Comment-Reply
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】asr-literature-positioning
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— sociology data sources by subfield../../resources/official-source-map.md— ASR scope, article types, length caps
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:22
