From ajs-skills
Explains the American Journal of Sociology's double-blind, student-run review process including the 'preject' screen and reviewer assignment. Use before submitting to stress-test your manuscript.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/ajs-skills:ajs-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
AJS's review process is **unusual** and worth understanding before submitting. It is **double-blind**,
AJS's review process is unusual and worth understanding before submitting. It is double-blind, run out of the University of Chicago Department of Sociology, with graduate students doing reviewer assignment and a "preject" screen for papers not in dialogue with current sociology. Knowing this lets you pre-empt the failure modes. Verify volatile specifics on the live editorial pages before submission.
ajs-submission). AJS will not knowingly use
reviewers in the author's network (current colleagues, coauthors, PhD cohort, etc.).| Reviewer asks | You answer with |
|---|---|
| Is this in dialogue with current sociology? | positioning in ajs-literature-positioning |
| Is there a portable theoretical payoff? | argument in ajs-theory-building |
| Is the method rigorous for its kind? | design defense in ajs-research-design |
| Do the data warrant the claim? | the evidence chain in ajs-data-analysis |
The preject screen is AJS's signature gate; these profiles get declined without review, and the fix is upstream. Confirm current screening practice against the journal's current submission guidelines.
| Preject profile | Pre-empt before submitting |
|---|---|
| Opinion / current-events interpretation | reframe as a researched argument or do not submit |
| Atheoretical finding | climb the theory ladder in ajs-theory-building |
| Subfield-only conversation | reposition for the discipline in ajs-literature-positioning |
| Broken anonymity | re-anonymize via ajs-submission before upload |
| Missing abstract | add a ~150-word abstract stating question/data/findings |
Orienting expectations, not guarantees; confirm timelines and categories against the journal's current submission guidelines.
Illustrative: a deeply theorized urban-ethnography study of immigrant incorporation is read blind and sent to three referees outside the author's network (an illustrative ethnographer, quantitativist, and generalist). The quantitativist asks for the mechanism's observable implications; the generalist flags an abstract that never states the puzzle. The realistic outcome is an R&R — not a reject, not a first-round accept.
【Clears the preject】in dialogue with current sociology + original research? [Y/N]
【Theoretical payoff】portable contribution present? [Y/N]
【Method rigor】defensible for its kind? [Y/N]
【Evidence→claim】warranted and candid? [Y/N]
【Anonymity】double-blind-ready? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】preject / reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】ajs-submission (or ajs-rebuttal if decided)
../../resources/external_tools.md — process and portal summary../../resources/official-source-map.md — AJS double-blind, preject, and Manuscript Assignment Board policynpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin ajs-skillsExplains ASR's masked peer review process, decision categories, and ethics rules to help shape manuscripts for submission.
Explains Social Forces journal's double-anonymized review process, decision categories, timeline (~71 days), and what expert reviewers weigh. Use before submitting to pre-empt failure modes.
Understand how AERJ evaluates manuscripts during masked peer review, desk screening, and decision categories.