Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› proceedings-of-the-ieee
proceedings-of-the-ieee
GitHub用于评估稿件是否符合IEEE汇刊的综述/教程定位，提供选题框架、广度平衡标准及拒稿预判。适用于将原始研究重构为综述、检查投稿适配度或区分邀稿与自由投稿场景。
Trigger Scenarios
作者拟投IEEE汇刊教程、综述或范围明确的评论文章，需进行适配性或框架检查
需将一系列主要研究成果重构为具有教学意义和前瞻性的综合综述，或决定转投其他期刊
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill proceedings-of-the-ieee -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "proceedings-of-the-ieee",
"description": "Use when targeting Proceedings of the IEEE or deciding whether an electrical-and-computer-engineering review manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the comprehensive-and-balanced synthesis bar, the no-primary-results expectation, the invited-vs-unsolicited and tutorial-vs-survey framing, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Proceedings of the IEEE (proceedings-of-the-ieee)
Journal positioning
Proceedings of the IEEE is the institute's flagship journal for authoritative, broadly accessible review, survey, and tutorial articles spanning the whole of electrical, electronic, and computer engineering and the technologies emerging from them. The defining expectation is a comprehensive, balanced, forward-looking synthesis that an engineer or researcher outside the immediate sub-community can read and learn from — not a primary-research paper reporting new experimental or theoretical results. Narrow contributions, opinion pieces masquerading as reviews, and surveys that simply tabulate one group's prior work are a poor fit and are routinely returned. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Proceedings of the IEEE author information and any active call.
When to trigger
- The author names Proceedings of the IEEE for a tutorial, survey, or scoped review spanning a recognizable engineering theme and wants a fit/framing check.
- A body of primary results must be re-framed into a comprehensive synthesis with pedagogical and forward-looking value, or routed to a primary-research transaction.
- The author is weighing an unsolicited submission against an invited contribution to a special issue, and needs to know how scope is defined.
- The author needs the breadth-and-balance bar and desk-reject heuristics specific to a flagship review venue.
Scope & topic fit
- Authoritative tutorials that teach a maturing technology area to non-specialists, with worked intuition and a coherent conceptual map of the field.
- Comprehensive surveys that organize and critically compare a large literature, identify open problems, and forecast directions — across any IEEE-relevant domain.
- Cross-cutting syntheses at the convergence of subfields (e.g., computing, signal processing, communications, power, photonics, control) where breadth is the value.
- Scoped reviews of an emerging technology with societal or systems-level impact, written for a general engineering audience.
- Special-issue contributions whose theme is set by the active call; route by the call's stated scope, not by the topic alone.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is coverage, organization, and critical judgment, not a new measurement; the article must survey the field fairly, including competing schools and negative results, rather than advocate one approach.
- Citations must be comprehensive and current across groups, not concentrated on the authors' own work; balance and completeness are explicitly judged.
- Any taxonomy, comparison table, or unifying framework must be defensible and add insight beyond a literature list.
- Open challenges and future directions must be substantive and grounded in the reviewed evidence, not a generic wishlist.
- New primary results, if present at all, are subordinate illustrations; a paper whose core is one new experiment or theorem belongs in a transaction instead.
Structure & house style
- IEEE format; the journal publishes long-form review/survey/tutorial articles — match scope to that length and re-check current article types and limits on the live guide.
- The introduction frames why the area matters now and what the article uniquely organizes; section structure should mirror a clear taxonomy of the field.
- Figures and tables are pedagogical and comparative — conceptual schematics, taxonomies, and side-by-side comparison tables — not data from a single study.
- Many articles are invited or tied to special issues; unsolicited submissions are possible but must clear the same comprehensiveness bar — confirm the current path.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the IEEE Author Center anchors, then cite the current Proceedings of the IEEE page you checked. - Search the live site for "Proceedings of the IEEE information for authors" and follow the current submission-system version.
- Re-check whether unsolicited reviews are accepted and any white-paper/proposal or pre-submission-inquiry step, plus active special-issue calls.
- Re-check article types, length expectations, and the IEEE template.
- Re-check ORCID, competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure requirements, and IEEE open-access options.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The article is a comprehensive, balanced synthesis — not a primary-research paper with a literature-review intro.
- Coverage spans the field's competing approaches and groups, not mainly the authors' own prior work.
- A clear taxonomy or unifying framework organizes the material and adds insight.
- Open problems and future directions are substantive and grounded in the reviewed evidence.
- The writing is accessible to engineers outside the immediate sub-community.
- The article type, length, and (if required) proposal/invitation path match the live guide.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A narrow primary-research paper reframed with a long introduction as if it were a review.
- A non-comprehensive or unbalanced survey centered on one group's work, missing major competing lines.
- A tutorial too specialized for a general engineering readership, or too shallow to teach the area.
- A "future of X" opinion piece with thin literature coverage and no critical organization.
- Survey that lists papers without taxonomy, comparison, or identification of open problems.
- Scope mismatch with the active special-issue call to which it is nominally submitted.
Re-routing decision
- New primary control/estimation theory →
ieee-transactions-on-automatic-controlorautomatica. - New signal-processing theory/methods →
ieee-transactions-on-signal-processing. - New communications results →
ieee-transactions-on-communicationsorieee-journal-on-selected-areas-in-communications. - Device-level emerging-electronics primary work →
nature-electronics. - A focused review in a single subfield → that subfield's dedicated review journal rather than a general flagship.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Proceedings of the IEEE
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest engineering themes>
[Article type] Tutorial / Survey / Scoped review
[Coverage] <is the synthesis comprehensive and balanced across groups?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Invitation path] unsolicited / special-issue call / proposal-first (re-check)
[Official items to re-check] <article type / length / proposal path / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:56
