Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› modern-language-quarterly
modern-language-quarterly
GitHub用于评估文学史稿件是否符合《现代语言季刊》(MLQ) 的投稿要求。提供选题定位、历史变革论证标准、拒稿启发式规则及双盲评审规范，辅助作者进行期刊匹配与内容重构。
Trigger Scenarios
确认稿件是否适合 MLQ 的文学史定位
将文本重构为关于时间变化的论证
在 MLQ 与其他理论导向期刊间做选择
了解 MLQ 的拒稿启发式规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill modern-language-quarterly -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "modern-language-quarterly",
"description": "Use when targeting Modern Language Quarterly (MLQ) or deciding whether a literary-history manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's literary-history fit, the historically grounded argument bar, periodization and change-over-time expectations, house style and double-blind norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Modern Language Quarterly (modern-language-quarterly)
Journal positioning
Modern Language Quarterly, published by Duke University Press, is a journal of literary history — it asks how literature changes over time and how those changes are best understood. Its defining expectation is a historically grounded argument about literary change: the emergence or transformation of a genre, form, mode, period, or tradition, demonstrated through evidence and situated in the history of the discipline's debates about periodization and historical method. A purely formalist reading detached from historical change, or a theory-application piece indifferent to literary history, is a poor fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing aid. It does not replace the journal's current submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live MLQ author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names MLQ for a literary-history essay and wants a fit/framing check.
- A reading must be re-framed as an argument about change over time — how a form, genre, or period came to be.
- The author is choosing between MLQ and a theory-led, new-historicist, or broad-readership venue.
- The author needs MLQ's literary-history bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Histories of genre, form, mode, and convention, and how they emerge, mutate, or fade.
- Periodization and the conceptual work of literary-historical categories (the medieval, the early modern, the modern, and their boundaries).
- Studies of literary change across an author's career, a movement, a national tradition, or a transnational current.
- Reception, transmission, and the long histories of texts and reading practices.
- Methodological essays on how literary history should be written, anchored in concrete cases.
- Work in any period or language tradition where the argument is genuinely about historical change.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is an original argument about literary change, with the historical claim — not a single reading — as the payoff.
- Command of the primary texts and their historical contexts is demonstrated and used to track change, not just describe a moment.
- The argument is situated in literary-historical scholarship and in debates about periodization and method.
- Evidence for the trajectory (texts, editions, contexts, comparisons) is marshaled systematically, not anecdotally.
- Theory and close reading serve the historical argument; neither substitutes for the demonstration of change.
- Claims about origins, shifts, or continuities are proportionate to the evidence and alert to counter-cases.
Structure & house style
- Scholarly essay developing a literary-historical argument; re-check current length expectations and essay types on the live guide.
- Citation follows the journal's current humanities style; notes carry contexts, editions, qualification, and secondary debate.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (self-citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Non-English quotations are given with translations per policy; textual and editorial references are precise.
- Any reproduced material requires permissions and meets the journal's specifications.
- Prose is argument-driven and legible across literary fields, not confined to one specialty.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Duke University Press anchors, then cite the current MLQ page you checked. - Search the live site for "Modern Language Quarterly submission guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check essay types, length expectations, and the abstract requirement.
- Confirm the citation/style format and anonymization for double-blind review.
- Re-check the translation policy for non-English quotation and any permissions.
- Re-check prior-presentation/preprint, simultaneous-submission, and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The argument is about literary change over time, with the historical claim as the payoff.
- Command of primary texts and contexts is used to track change, not just to read one moment.
- The essay engages literary-historical scholarship and debates about periodization and method.
- Evidence for the trajectory is systematic rather than anecdotal, and alert to counter-cases.
- Theory and close reading serve the historical demonstration rather than replacing it.
- The manuscript is anonymized, follows current style, and has translations/permissions in hand.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A formalist or close reading with no argument about historical change.
- A theory-application essay indifferent to literary history or periodization.
- A "history" asserted from one or two examples rather than a demonstrated trajectory.
- No engagement with literary-historical scholarship or the method debates the essay enters.
- Claims about origins or shifts out of proportion to the evidence, ignoring counter-cases.
- Wrong venue: a present-focused theoretical or interpretive essay better served elsewhere.
Re-routing decision
- Broad-readership interpretive essay →
pmla. - Agenda-setting high theory across the arts →
critical-inquiry. - Argument about the theory or method of literary study itself →
new-literary-history. - New-historicist analysis built from an archival particular →
representations. - Cross-linguistic or world-literature comparison →
comparative-literature; argument that is really historical →the-american-historical-review.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Modern Language Quarterly
[Period/tradition] <closest period, genre, or tradition>
[Change argued] <the literary-historical change in one line — what shifts and how>
[Textual/historical basis] <does the evidence of change clear the literary-history bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <length / citation style / anonymization / translations / permissions>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:57
