io-literature-positioning
GitHub用于将国际组织稿件定位至国际关系文献，确保其作为IR辩论贡献。指导作者跨越理性主义、建构主义等范式，精准识别理论缺口，与核心文献对话并预判反驳，提升论文在IO期刊的理论深度与竞争力。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill io-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "io-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when positioning an International Organization (IO) manuscript against the international-relations literature so it reads as a contribution to an IR debate. IO readers span rationalist, constructivist, institutionalist, IPE, and security traditions, so the paper must engage the IR conversation it speaks to and the closest prior IR work — while staying double-blind. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review."
}
Literature Positioning (io-literature-positioning)
IO is read by international-relations scholars across paradigms (rationalist, constructivist, institutionalist) and research areas (IPE, security, institutions). Positioning is therefore about placing your paper inside a recognizable IR debate and showing the move you make in it — not a citation pile, and not a domestic-politics literature with an IR veneer.
When to trigger
- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
- A reviewer said you "missed the key IR work" or "don't engage the debate"
- Your case is solid but the paper doesn't connect to a general IR argument
- You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior IR papers
How IO wants the literature engaged
- Engage an IR debate, not a pile of cites. Name the live disagreement your paper enters — e.g., do institutions constrain states or merely screen them; does trade pacify or provoke; are norms causal or epiphenomenal. Cite the works that define the debate.
- Position across paradigms where it matters. IO prizes theoretical pluralism. If your claim cuts against a rationalist or constructivist account, say so and engage it on its terms — don't ignore the rival tradition.
- Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known about X" — say what is contested, under-theorized, mismeasured, or untested in the IR literature, and why resolving it advances the field's understanding of international politics.
- Position the contribution as a move in the debate. "Prior IR work argues X via mechanism M; we show M fails / is conditional on C / is better explained by M′ at the international level."
- Pre-empt the strongest IR objection. IO reviewers are expert; name the leading rival explanation
and say how the design adjudicates it (hand off to
io-research-design).
Cross-tradition engagement (a distinctive IO demand)
| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|---|
| an empirical test of an institutional claim | the formal/rationalist theory generating the prediction |
| a security/conflict study | the bargaining and audience-cost literatures it bears on |
| an IPE paper | both the economic logic and the domestic-distributional politics it travels through |
| constructivist / normative | the rationalist baseline it improves on, and the observable implications |
Referee-pushback patterns and the IO-specific fix
Positioning complaints from IO referees are predictable; each has a venue-appropriate repair that strengthens rather than merely placates.
| Referee says… | What it signals | The IO fix |
|---|---|---|
| "Descriptive, not theoretically motivated" | no live debate is entered | open by naming the contested IR claim and the works that define it |
| "Missed the key literature" | the closest prior IR paper is uncited | engage the nearest rival head-on and state your delta |
| "Ignores the rationalist/constructivist account" | single-paradigm framing | engage the rival tradition on its own terms, not in a footnote |
| "Contribution is incremental" | the move in the debate is too small | reframe as overturning or bounding mechanism M, not adding to it |
Worked positioning vignette (illustrative)
A paper finds that joining an international monitoring body raises a state's later treaty compliance. A citation pile ("many works study compliance…") draws the "descriptive" pushback. The IO move is to name the live disagreement — the managerial school says institutions raise compliance by building capacity; the enforcement/screening school says they merely select already-compliant states. The paper then adjudicates: "prior work attributes the gain to capacity-building (mechanism M); we show it is conditional on prior domestic enforcement capacity C, so M is bounded, not general." That sentence converts a dump into a recognizable move in an IR debate and pre-commits the design to separating selection from treatment.
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump" with no organizing IR debate
- Engaging only one paradigm and ignoring the rival tradition IO readers expect
- Treating a domestic-politics literature as the home debate (re-center on IR — see
io-topic-selection) - Self-citation that breaks anonymity (IO is double-blind — cite your own work in the third person)
- Claiming "first to study" when the IR contribution is incremental
- Framing the contribution as additive ("we add X") rather than as a stake in the debate
Output format
【IR debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Tradition(s)】rationalist / constructivist / institutionalist / IPE / security engaged
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. the rival account)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / untested in IR
【Move】how this paper changes the IR debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】io-theory-building
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— IO scope (generalizable IR theory) and double-blind self-citation rule
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:23
