Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› cement-and-concrete-research
cement-and-concrete-research
GitHub用于评估水泥与混凝土研究领域的论文投稿匹配度。协助作者判断稿件是否符合期刊对机理、微观结构及表征的严格要求，或将侧重配合比优化的文章重构为机制研究故事，避免被拒稿。
触发场景
作者询问某篇关于水泥化学、微观结构或耐久性的论文是否适合该期刊
需要将强调性能提升的稿件重构为水化或降解机理故事
在机制研究与配比优化类期刊间犹豫时进行决策
需要了解期刊严格的表征标准及desk-reject启发式规则
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cement-and-concrete-research -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "cement-and-concrete-research",
"description": "Use when targeting Cement and Concrete Research or deciding whether a cementitious-materials manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's materials-science fit, the mechanism-plus-characterization bar, the distinction from mix-design optimization, characterization rigor, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Cement and Concrete Research (cement-and-concrete-research)
Journal positioning
Cement and Concrete Research is the leading archival journal for the science of cementitious materials: cement hydration and chemistry, microstructure development, durability and degradation mechanisms, and the mechanical behavior of concrete and cement-based materials. Its center of gravity is mechanistic understanding backed by rigorous characterization — why a phase assemblage forms, how microstructure evolves, and how that governs transport, durability, or strength. The journal rewards papers that establish a materials-science mechanism, not papers that merely report that a mix or admixture changed a performance number. A mix-design or proportioning optimization with no mechanism, no characterization, and no fundamental insight is a poor fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Cement and Concrete Research Guide for Authors.
When to trigger
- The author names Cement and Concrete Research for a cement-chemistry, microstructure, durability, or concrete-mechanics manuscript and wants a fit/framing check.
- A paper must be re-framed from "this mix performed better" into a hydration / microstructure / degradation mechanism story.
- The author is deciding between this journal and an applied construction-materials or structures venue, or between mechanism and proportioning emphasis.
- The author needs the journal's characterization-rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics for cementitious-materials work.
Scope & topic fit
- Cement hydration and chemistry: reaction kinetics, phase assemblage, thermodynamics, and the chemistry of supplementary cementitious materials and alternative binders.
- Microstructure development: pore structure, C-S-H and hydrate morphology, interfacial transition zone, and structure–property links.
- Durability and degradation mechanisms: chloride/sulfate attack, carbonation, alkali-silica reaction, leaching, freeze–thaw, and transport processes — mechanistically resolved.
- Mechanical behavior of concrete and cement-based materials when tied to microstructure or chemistry, including time-dependent behavior (creep, shrinkage).
- Low-carbon and alternative binders (calcined clays, geopolymers, alkali-activated systems) where the advance is mechanistic understanding, not just a recipe.
- Characterization and modeling methods for cementitious systems when validated and used to resolve a mechanism, not as a stand-alone technique demonstration.
Method & evidence bar
- The central claim is a mechanism in chemistry, microstructure, or degradation — supported by appropriate, quantitative characterization, not a performance table or representative images alone.
- Characterization must be rigorous and fit-for-purpose: XRD (often quantitative), TGA, calorimetry, NMR, SEM/EDS, MIP, and spectroscopy with proper sample preparation, controls, and peak/phase assignments.
- Quantitative claims (degree of hydration, phase fractions, transport coefficients) require reported methods, replication, and uncertainty, not single measurements.
- Property and durability improvements must be explained mechanistically and benchmarked against the correct reference binder/mix, not a strawman.
- Modeling (thermodynamic, microstructural, transport) must be validated against experiment or make tested predictions; a model with no experimental anchor is usually insufficient.
- Reproducibility: report binder composition, w/b ratio, curing, mix and sample preparation, and test protocols in enough detail to reproduce the microstructure and the measurement.
Structure & house style
- Standard research-article structure (introduction, materials/methods, results, discussion); Cement and Concrete Research publishes full-length archival articles — route short or purely applied results elsewhere and re-check current article types on the live guide.
- The introduction motivates the cement-science gap (mechanism), not the construction application; the discussion is where the chemistry/microstructure– property argument is made explicit.
- Figures are load-bearing: diffractograms and thermograms with assignments, micrographs with scale bars and quantification, and property plots with error bars and the proposed mechanism schematic.
- Supplementary material carries extended characterization, raw spectra, and full mix/curing details; main-text figures must support the central mechanism alone.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Cement and Concrete Research Guide for Authors page you checked. - Search the live site for "Cement and Concrete Research guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
- Re-check article types, length/figure expectations, and any reporting standards for materials and testing protocols.
- Confirm data-availability and raw-data policy (e.g., diffraction, calorimetry, microscopy data) and any required reporting of mix proportions and curing.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure requirements.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The contribution is a hydration/microstructure/durability mechanism, not a mix that simply performed better.
- Characterization is appropriate and quantitative (phase fractions, hydration degree, transport) with controls and assignments.
- Quantitative claims are replicated with reported uncertainty, not single measurements.
- Performance/durability changes are benchmarked against the correct reference binder/mix and explained mechanistically.
- Any thermodynamic/microstructural/transport model is validated against experiment or makes a tested prediction.
- Binder composition, w/b, curing, sample prep, and test protocols are reported in reproducible detail.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A mix-design or proportioning optimization with a performance table but no mechanism or characterization.
- Durability/strength claims by representative images only, with no quantification, controls, or sampling.
- Modeling-only studies with no experimental validation or testable prediction.
- Admixture/additive "it worked better" papers with no chemistry or microstructure explanation.
- Application/structures-engineering papers where the cement-science mechanism is incidental.
- Inadequate reporting of mix, curing, and sample preparation, preventing reproducibility.
Re-routing decision
- Construction/structural-engineering application over materials science → an applied construction-materials or structures journal.
- Comprehensive critical review of cementitious materials →
progress-in-materials-science. - Broader structural-materials mechanism beyond cement →
acta-materialia. - Fiber-reinforced or polymer-composite emphasis →
composites-part-b-engineering. - Highest-impact conceptual materials advance →
nature-materials.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Cement and Concrete Research
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest cementitious-materials subtopics>
[Mechanism] <the hydration / microstructure / durability claim in one line>
[Method/evidence] <does characterization + modeling clear the mechanism + rigor bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / data policy / mix reporting / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:55
