Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› io-writing-style
io-writing-style
GitHub用于起草或润色国际组织（IO）期刊稿件，确保符合跨范式可读性、双盲格式及字数限制。聚焦强化论点表达与规范引用，不生成新内容。
触发场景
起草引言或最终润色稿件
需削减字数以符合上限
准备摘要和致谢等独立提交文件
调整引注格式以符合IO规范
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill io-writing-style -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "io-writing-style",
"description": "Use when drafting or polishing an International Organization (IO) manuscript so it reads for international-relations scholars across paradigms, fits the word caps (Research Article <= 14,000; Research Note <= 8,000; Essay <= 10,000, including tables, figures, and notes but excluding the bibliography), and meets IO format conventions (double-blind, third-person self-citation, short author-date footnotes, separate abstract\/word-count\/acknowledgments). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content."
}
Writing Style (io-writing-style)
An IO paper must be readable by an international-relations scholar from a different tradition, framed around a generalizable IR theory, and disciplined to the word cap. This skill is about reaching the IR field and respecting IO's format — not about generating claims.
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the IR contribution, or final polish
- Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument
- Preparing the abstract, word count, and acknowledgments (submitted separately from the manuscript)
- Aligning citations/footnotes/format to IO conventions before submission
Reach the IR field (across paradigms)
- Front-load the IR contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the international question, the theory, the evidence, and why it matters for international politics. Don't make a reader from another tradition dig for the "so what."
- Speak across rationalist / constructivist / IPE / security divides. Define paradigm-specific jargon on first use; a security scholar should follow an IPE paper and vice versa. Spell out IGO and dataset acronyms.
- Argument-first prose. Lead with the IR claim; use evidence to support it. Avoid "the data show…" without saying what they show about international politics and why it matters.
- Signpost. Clear section structure so a reader can follow theory → design → evidence.
Format to IO conventions
- Self-citation / anonymity: IO is double-blind — after the title page, omit self-references that reveal identity and refer to your own work in the third person (e.g., "Matthews 2022," not "as we showed"). Strip identifying file metadata.
- Citations: accepted manuscripts use short author-date footnotes rather than parenthetical references; keep one consistent style (manage with Zotero/BibTeX) and convert at acceptance. The bibliography is excluded from the word count.
- Abstract / word count / acknowledgments: submitted separately from the manuscript; include a
Data Availability Statement before the reference list (see
io-transparency-and-data-policy). - ORCID: corresponding author registers an ORCID iD.
Fit the word cap (counts include tables/figures/notes; exclude the bibliography)
- Research Article ≤ 14,000, Research Note ≤ 8,000, Essay ≤ 10,000 words.
- Move balance tables, full specs, robustness grids, and formal-proof details to supplementary material (which should rarely exceed ~20 pages).
- Cut throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the IR debate, not every paper (see
io-literature-positioning). - Tighten footnotes — they count toward the limit. Prefer one decisive figure to three redundant tables.
The IO introduction, paragraph by paragraph (a working template)
IO introductions that survive the screen tend to follow a recognizable arc. Adapt, don't copy:
- The puzzle in world politics — a real international phenomenon (why do rivals sign treaties they could defect from?) any IR scholar finds consequential.
- The live debate and its impasse — the rival accounts and why existing IR theory cannot settle it.
- The claim — your portable theory of international politics, in one sentence, before any evidence.
- Design and result in a breath — the dyadic/treaty/experimental setup, the rival it rules out, and the headline magnitude in IR terms (conflict probability, compliance, trade).
- The stakes — what the field now understands about institutions, cooperation, or conflict that it did not. This is the broad-significance close IO editors look for; a reader from another paradigm should be able to restate the contribution by paragraph three.
Prose register for a methodologically plural IR audience
Because IO mixes formal, quantitative, and qualitative readers, calibrate so none is excluded. A formal result reads better as "states with private information over resolve cannot credibly signal, so bargaining breaks down" before the proposition. A process-tracing narrative should surface its inferential logic so a quantitative reader sees the leverage. The shared standard: the theory of world politics carries the prose and the method serves it.
Anti-patterns
- A single-tradition intro that never states the general IR contribution
- Burying the contribution in the middle of the paper
- First-person self-references that break double-blind anonymity
- Mixed citation styles; acknowledgments left inside the manuscript instead of submitted separately
- Padding a Research Note toward Article length
- Method-led prose where the estimator, not the theory of international politics, drives the narrative
Output format
【IR contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads across traditions?】paradigm jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Word count】Article ≤14,000 / Note ≤8,000 / Essay ≤10,000 (incl. tables/figures/notes; excl. bibliography)?
【Double-blind】third-person self-citation + metadata clean? [Y/N]
【Abstract/word-count/acknowledgments separate + DAS + ORCID】[Y/N]
【Next】io-transparency-and-data-policy
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— word caps, third-person self-citation, short author-date footnotes, separate abstract/word-count/acknowledgments, ORCID
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:23
