cscw-writing-style
GitHub指导CSCW论文写作，强调跨学科可读性、群体视角叙事、理论实效性及字数纪律。要求避免个体化表述，确保概念定义清晰、引用有分析价值，并谨慎处理参与者声音与立场声明。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cscw-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "cscw-writing-style",
"description": "Use when drafting or revising CSCW prose — group-level framing, concepts a field can reuse, participant voice handled with care, theory that earns its keep, and length discipline under the 5,000-12,000-word scrutiny band where contribution is weighed against every page."
}
CSCW Writing Style
A CSCW paper is judged by readers from several intellectual traditions at once — ethnographers, statisticians, system builders, social theorists — inside a journal process where the same reviewers may read the paper twice. The prose must therefore do two unusual things: make each tradition's part legible to the others, and hold up under a second, more skeptical read during Revise and Resubmit.
Length: no cap, but a scale
CSCW imposes no formal page limit. The 2026-cycle CFP instead put weight on a band: papers under roughly 5,000 words or over roughly 12,000 words attract extra scrutiny, and a paper whose length is incommensurate with its contribution can be desk rejected. Treat length as a claim you are making: every additional section asserts that the contribution needs it. Practical calibration:
- Write the paper the contribution needs, then defend the word count in one sentence. If you cannot, cut until you can.
- Long ≠ thorough. A 14,000-word manuscript signals unedited fieldnotes more often than it signals depth; move protocol detail to appendices.
- Short ≠ crisp. Under ~5,000 words, reviewers will ask whether the study is a workshop paper wearing a journal costume.
The group-level sentence
The single most common style failure at this venue is drift back to the individual user. Audit every claim sentence:
| Drifted (individual) | Anchored (collective) |
|---|---|
| "Users struggled to trust the bot's suggestions" | "Teams routed the bot's suggestions through a senior member before acting on them" |
| "Participants felt burnout" | "The moderation team rotated exposure to harmful content to distribute burnout" |
| "People adopted the feature" | "The community renegotiated its norms around what the feature made visible" |
| "The tool improved efficiency" | "The tool redistributed articulation work from editors to contributors" |
If a finding cannot be written in the right-hand register, either the analysis
stopped too early or the paper belongs at a different venue (cscw-topic-selection).
Concepts, theory, and participant voice
- Name your concept once, define it, then use it consistently. CSCW's canon is full of load-bearing vocabulary (awareness, articulation work, place vs. space). A new concept must be defined against — not merely alongside — the existing terms.
- Theory must produce consequences. Every theoretical frame invoked should change either the analysis or the design discussion. A framework cited in the introduction and never touched again reads as ornament and will be flagged.
- Quote people as evidence, not decoration. Each participant quote should carry analytic weight the surrounding prose then does; a quote that merely restates the preceding sentence is filler. For sensitive communities, paraphrase or lightly alter quotes when verbatim text is reverse-searchable, and say that you did so.
- Report your positionality where it matters — in fieldwork with communities the authors belong to or hold power over, a sentence about the researchers' relationship to the setting is analytic information, not confession.
Calibration under re-review
Because R&R returns to the same reviewers, overclaiming is a double cost: it draws the objection in round one and the check in round two. Write claims that a hostile re-reader can verify against your own data sections:
- Scope every generalization: "in the six communities we studied," "among moderators of crisis-support forums."
- Separate what participants said, what traces show, and what you interpret — with different verbs ("reported," "exhibited," "we read this as").
- Put limitations where they belong analytically, not as a ritual final paragraph.
First-page audit
[Protagonist] Is a group/community/organization the subject of the first
claim sentence? yes / no
[Stake] Does ¶2 say what breaks if the field keeps misunderstanding
this — or just that "little is known"?
[Concept] Is there one named, reusable idea? Can a reviewer paraphrase
it in a sentence?
[Methods+ethics] Are counts, settings, consent posture, and data-sensitivity
handling visible by end of the introduction?
[Length claim] Word count: <n>. One-sentence defense if outside 5,000-12,000.
Run the audit again on the revised manuscript before any R&R resubmission — the introduction is where reviewers first test whether the revision was real.
The word-band and template facts reflect the 2026-cycle CFP checked 2026-07-08; confirm they carry into the rolling model before citing them to a co-author.
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 14:41
