Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› bjps-literature-positioning
bjps-literature-positioning
GitHub针对BJPS期刊的文献定位技能，指导作者将论文置于跨子领域和国家的广泛辩论中，避免狭隘视角。通过精准识别核心争议、连接一般理论与具体案例，并预判反对意见，确立研究的广泛国际贡献与重要性。
Trigger Scenarios
撰写或修改引言及贡献段落
审稿人指出未参与更广泛辩论
需区分与最接近先前研究的贡献
撰写必须精准回应目标文章的评论
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill bjps-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "bjps-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when positioning a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution of wide, cross-subfield, international interest. BJPS readers span subfields and countries, so the paper must engage the literatures they expect and avoid the desk-screen trap of looking parochial. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review."
}
Literature Positioning (bjps-literature-positioning)
BJPS is read across comparative politics, IR, theory, behaviour, political economy, and methods, and draws contributions from related disciplines (sociology, social psychology, economics, philosophy). Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it is how a non-specialist editor and reviewer see that the paper speaks to a live, general debate rather than a parochial one.
When to trigger
- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
- A reviewer said you "missed obvious work" or "don't engage the broader debate"
- Your country/subfield literature is solid but the paper doesn't connect to general theory
- You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers
- Writing a Comment that must engage the target article precisely
How BJPS wants the literature engaged
- Engage the debate, not a pile of citations. Identify the live disagreement or open question the paper speaks to, and cite the works that define it — including across subfields and countries.
- Two audiences at once. Satisfy specialists (you know the frontier) and generalists (why it matters). A single-country study should connect to the comparative theory it tests.
- Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured, under-theorized, or untested, and why resolving it advances the field generally.
- Position the contribution as a move in the debate. "Prior work argues X via mechanism M; we show M fails / is conditional on C / is better explained by M′."
- Pre-empt the obvious objection. BJPS reviewers are expert; acknowledge the strongest rival and
say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to
bjps-research-design).
Cross-subfield / cross-national engagement (a distinctive BJPS demand)
| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| a single-country empirical test | the general comparative theory the case speaks to |
| an IR / formal argument | the substantive empirical work the model bears on |
| a measurement contribution | the substantive literatures that will use the measure |
| a behaviour/opinion finding | the institutional or representational stake it informs |
| normative / theoretical | the empirical work the argument bears on, where applicable |
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump" with no organizing debate
- Engaging only your own subfield, or only the literature on one country (a top BJPS rejection reason)
- Strawmanning prior work, or hiding the closest competitor paper
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity (BJPS is double-blind — see
bjps-submission) - Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental
- For a Comment: misreading or caricaturing the target article rather than engaging its actual claim
Output format
【Debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-subfield / cross-national)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】bjps-theory-building
Engagement depth BJPS editors expect, by paper type
Because BJPS is a broad, international generalist journal, "the relevant literature" is rarely just your home subfield's or your home country's. The desk screen asks whether a non-specialist editor sees a general debate; this table sets the depth that usually clears it.
| Paper type | Literature it must engage | The parochialism trap to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Single-country empirical | the cross-national theory the case tests | a country literature with no general claim |
| Comparative / political economy | the general institutional theory it speaks to | a region study read only by area specialists |
| IR / formal | the substantive empirical work the model bears on | a model debate detached from political outcomes |
| Behaviour / opinion | the representation/accountability stake it informs | a single-survey finding with no broader payoff |
| Measurement / methods | the substantive literatures that will use the measure | method-for-its-own-sake with no consumer |
Calibration anchors (hedged)
- BJPS's premium is wide interest, so positioning that satisfies only one subfield's or one country's frontier is structurally weak even when the within-niche contribution is real.
- Methodological pluralism extends to literatures: a normative argument may legitimately engage empirical work, and a single case may legitimately speak to general comparative theory.
- The exact desk-screen wording can change — confirm against the journal's current author and peer-review pages before relying on it.
Supplementary resources
../../resources/exemplars/library.md— verified BJPS papers that make a single result of general interest../../resources/official-source-map.md— BJPS aims and scope
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:25
