Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› history-of-religions
history-of-religions
GitHub辅助评估论文是否契合《History of Religions》期刊定位，检查比较历史方法论、原始文献掌握度及学术规范，提供拒稿启发式判断与框架调整建议。
触发场景
用户指定该期刊或需评估稿件适配性
单传统研究需重构为比较/形态学论证
在综合性宗教研究期刊与该刊间做选择
需要了解比较方法标准及拒稿风险
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill history-of-religions -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "history-of-religions",
"description": "Use when targeting History of Religions or deciding whether a comparative-historical religious-studies manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, its comparative-method and primary-source bar, textual\/philological and morphological expectations, house style and review norms, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
History of Religions (history-of-religions)
Journal positioning
History of Religions, published by the University of Chicago Press, is the field-defining
venue for the comparative and historical study of religious traditions worldwide. Its
defining commitment is the "history of religions" methodology — cross-cultural,
comparative, and morphological analysis of religious phenomena (myth, ritual, symbol,
cosmology, the sacred) grounded in primary-source and philological control of specific
traditions. A strong submission joins close, language-based study of particular materials
to a comparative or historical argument that illuminates how a religious form works across
cases or develops over time. It is distinct from the-journal-of-religion, which is broader
and welcomes theology and philosophy of religion, and from harvard-theological-review, with
its textual, biblical, and early-Christian focus: History of Religions foregrounds method —
comparison and historical morphology — over confessional or constructive concerns.
Theological advocacy, or comparison that floats free of sources and languages, is a poor
fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing aid. It does not replace the
journal's current submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live History of
Religions author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names History of Religions for a comparative or historical study of religious traditions and wants a fit/framing check.
- A study of one tradition must be reframed to carry a comparative or historical-morphological argument.
- The author is choosing between History of Religions and a broad religious-studies venue or a textual/biblical journal.
- The author needs the journal's comparative-method bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Comparative study of religious phenomena — myth, ritual, symbol, cosmology, sacred space and time — across traditions.
- Historical study of the development and transformation of religious forms within and across traditions.
- Morphological and typological analysis that illuminates the structure of religious phenomena.
- Close, source-based study of specific traditions (any region or period) that bears a comparative or historical argument.
- Method and theory in the comparative history of religions, including the comparative enterprise itself.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is an original comparative or historical argument about a religious form, not a parallel-hunting catalogue.
- Command of the primary sources is demonstrated, with control of the relevant original languages and philology where the materials require it.
- Comparison is principled and historically responsible — terms of comparison are justified, and difference is respected as much as similarity.
- Engagement with the relevant comparative, historical, and area-specific scholarship is current and substantive.
- Claims are proportionate to the evidence; methodological self-awareness about the categories and the comparative method is explicit.
Structure & house style
- Scholarly article with a sustained comparative or historical argument; defer exact length expectations and article types to the live guide.
- Chicago notes-and-bibliography style with full footnotes; re-check the current form on the live guide.
- Original-language sources are quoted, transliterated, and translated per the journal's policy across the relevant traditions.
- Double-blind review: anonymize the manuscript (remove self-identifying citations and acknowledgements) per current policy.
- Prose makes the comparative or historical stake legible to scholars working on other traditions, not only area specialists.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the University of Chicago Press anchors, then cite the current History of Religions page you checked. - Search the live site for "History of Religions submission guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check article types, length expectations, and the abstract requirement.
- Confirm Chicago notes-and-bibliography form and anonymization for double-blind review.
- Re-check original-language quotation, transliteration, and translation policy across the traditions cited.
- Re-check prior-presentation/preprint, competing-interest, and AI-use disclosure policies.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The argument is genuinely comparative or historical, not a parallel-hunting catalogue.
- Primary sources are commanded directly, with the original languages and philology the materials require.
- The terms of comparison are justified and difference is respected, not flattened.
- Engagement with comparative, historical, and area-specific scholarship is current and substantive.
- The manuscript is anonymized and follows Chicago notes-and-bibliography style.
- Original-language quotations, transliterations, and translations follow the journal's policy.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A catalogue of superficial parallels with no principled comparative or historical argument.
- Comparison untethered from primary sources or the relevant original languages.
- Theological or confessional advocacy in place of historical and comparative analysis.
- Claims out of proportion to the evidence, or comparison that flattens difference between traditions.
- Wrong venue: a single-tradition theological or textual study with no comparative stake.
Re-routing decision
- Theology, philosophy of religion, or religion-and-culture argument across the broad field →
the-journal-of-religion. - Textual, biblical, early-Christian, or rigorous philological-historical religious scholarship →
harvard-theological-review. - Religion as part of a broad historical argument legible across fields →
the-american-historical-review. - Society/ritual/belief studied as social history with a problem-driven argument →
past-and-present. - Comparison of religious texts with a literary-critical or world-literature center →
comparative-literature.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] History of Religions
[Traditions/period] <the traditions compared, region(s), and period>
[Argument] <the comparative or historical claim in one line>
[Sources/method] <does the source command + principled comparison clear the journal's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <length / Chicago style / anonymization / original-language & translation policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:57
