Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› revedres-editor-strategy
revedres-editor-strategy
GitHub指导撰写《教育研究评论》(RER) 投稿的策略，涵盖编辑审稿标准、预判反驳点及贡献定位。用于评估稿件是否符合整合性要求、确保方法严谨性，并区分于其他期刊，提升录用率。
Trigger Scenarios
稿件已起草，需模拟RER编辑和审稿人视角进行审视
不确定贡献是‘推进’还是‘综述’，或需预判审稿人异议
在RER与姊妹期刊间权衡投稿去向
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill revedres-editor-strategy -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "revedres-editor-strategy",
"description": "Use when anticipating editor and reviewer expectations, framing the contribution, and positioning scope for a Review of Educational Research (RER) submission. Aligns the review with how RER is refereed; it does not run the submission preflight (revedres-submission) or draft the response to reviewers (revedres-revision)."
}
Editor & Reviewer Strategy (revedres-editor-strategy)
When to trigger
- The review is drafted and you need to see it as RER's editors and reviewers will
- You are unsure whether the contribution will read as "advance" or "competent summary"
- You want to pre-empt the predictable reviewer objections before they are written
- You are weighing RER against a sibling venue and need the fit call
How RER is refereed (and what that means for you)
RER reviews are submitted and peer-reviewed by AERA/SAGE — there is no commissioning editor pre-clearing your topic, so the manuscript must win on its own. The co-editors (the most-recent-listed team based at Penn State — Boveda, Ford, Frankenberg, López; publicized as the 2022–2025 team, with no 2026+ successor team announced as of 2026-06-23 web search; 检索于 2026-06-23，以官网为准) desk-screen for fit and rigor before assigning masked reviewers. Two questions decide the manuscript:
- Is it genuinely integrative and advancing? RER explicitly does not want annotated bibliographies or thin stock-takes. Reviewers ask: does the framework reorganize the field and move theory or policy?
- Is the review itself rigorous? For systematic reviews/meta-analyses: documented exhaustive search (PRISMA), reliable coding, defensible models, risk-of-bias, and sensitivity analysis. Process rigor is not negotiable.
Consult the Guidelines for Reviewers RER publishes — they state the criteria your manuscript is judged on; write to them.
The predictable reviewer objections (pre-empt each)
| Objection | Where it is answered |
|---|---|
| "This is a summary, not an integration." | revedres-organizing-framework — name the spine and the advance up front |
| "The search is incomplete / not reproducible." | revedres-literature-synthesis + PRISMA flow |
| "Coding reliability is unstated." | revedres-transparency-and-reproducibility — report κ/ICC |
| "The pooled effect ignores heterogeneity / bias." | revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance — I², moderators, funnel, sensitivity |
| "Conflicting findings are vote-counted." | weigh by estimand + design quality, steelman camps |
| "The author over-cites their own program." | bracket self-work; emphasis identity-blind |
| "This belongs at AERJ / AERA Open." | confirm it is a review, not original empirical research |
Scope and contribution framing
- Lead with the advance, not the gap. "No one has reviewed X" is weak; "the field disagrees because studies estimate different objects, and this taxonomy reconciles them" is strong.
- Right-size the scope so the search is provably exhaustive yet the contribution matters across education.
- Name the audience — RER's broad, cross-disciplinary education readership — and write the contribution in their terms.
Sibling-venue fit (route honestly)
| Venue | Take it there instead when… |
|---|---|
| AERJ / AERA Open | the core is original empirical research, not a synthesis |
| Educational Researcher | it is a short commentary, policy essay, or methodological brief, not a comprehensive review |
| Review of Research in Education | it fits a commissioned thematic volume, not an unsolicited integrative review |
| Psychological Bulletin | it is a psychology review with no central bearing on education |
| Annual Reviews / discipline handbooks | the piece is an invited, non-systematic overview |
Checklist
- Contribution framed as an advance (reconciles/reframes), not just "no prior review"
- Manuscript written to RER's published Guidelines for Reviewers
- Each predictable objection (summary / search / coding / heterogeneity / vote-count / self-cite) pre-empted in the text
- Scope right-sized: provably exhaustive search and cross-education importance
- Audience named and addressed (broad, cross-disciplinary education readership)
- Sibling-venue fit checked; RER is the right home (not AERJ / ER / RRE / Psych Bulletin)
Anti-patterns
- Pitching the gap ("nobody has done this") instead of the advance
- Submitting a competent summary and hoping reviewers see integration the text does not state
- Ignoring the Guidelines for Reviewers and being surprised by the criteria
- Writing for a sub-specialty when RER's readership is broad
- Sending original empirical research to a review journal (a desk-reject)
Output format
【Contribution framing】advance stated (reconcile/reframe), not just gap? Y/N
【Reviewer-guidelines fit】written to RER's published criteria? Y/N
【Objections pre-empted】summary / search / coding / heterogeneity / vote-count / self-cite — all addressed? Y/N
【Scope】exhaustive search + cross-education importance? Y/N
【Audience】broad education readership addressed? Y/N
【Sibling check】RER is the right venue (not AERJ/ER/RRE/Psych Bulletin)? Y/N
【Next step】→ revedres-submission (Manuscript Central preflight)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:22
