From annual-review-of-sociology-skills
Guides negotiation of commissioned scope and anticipation of reviewer expectations for ARSoc review articles. Plans interaction with Editorial Committee and production team.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/annual-review-of-sociology-skills:arsoc-editor-strategyThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- The Editorial Committee invited the topic and you are negotiating the review's scope
ARSoc is run by an Editorial Committee — an editor (检索于 2026-06:co-editors Douglas Massey & Mary C. Waters;以官网为准), associate editors, regular members serving multi-year terms, and occasional one-year guest members — plus the journal's production team at Annual Reviews. Your primary partners differ by phase: the commissioning editor / Committee owns scope and acceptance; the production editor owns format, figures, copyediting, and the volume schedule. Because the article is commissioned, the relationship is more collaborative than adversarial — the Committee wants the review to succeed — but acceptance is not automatic: an invited manuscript is still assessed for accuracy, rigor, and balance (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
ARSoc reviewers do not check an identification strategy or replicate results — there are none of the author's own. They evaluate the review as a review:
| Reviewer question | What they are really checking |
|---|---|
| Is the coverage complete? | the saturation/coverage account from arsoc-literature-synthesis / arsoc-transparency-and-reproducibility — can they name an omitted literature? |
| Is it balanced and accurate? | even-handedness across schools and methods; no self-promotion (arsoc-comprehensiveness-and-balance) |
| Is there a real framework? | the spine vs. an annotated bibliography (arsoc-organizing-framework) |
| Is it accessible? | can a sociologist from another subfield follow it (arsoc-writing-style) |
| Are the appraisals fair and correct? | does the author characterize each study's contribution and limits accurately |
| Is it the right scope? | not too narrow (specialist review) nor unfinishably broad (handbook) |
Reviewers of an ARSoc review are often the reviewed authors themselves — the people whose work is being weighed will read how you weighed it. This makes balance and accurate attribution strategic, not just ethical.
【Scope agreement】boundaries (traditions + methods) locked with editor in writing? Y/N
【Referee anticipation】coverage / balance / framework / accessibility / appraisal / scope — prepared each? Y/N
【Coverage asks】evaluated against spine + envelope; accept/push-back plan? Y/N
【COI】reviewed-author referees flagged to editor? Y/N
【Timeline】volume/production schedule calibrated? Y/N · 待核实
【Source status】current editors/process re-confirmed on Annual Reviews pages? Y/N
【Next step】→ arsoc-submission (delivery preflight)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin annual-review-of-sociology-skillsNegotiates ARE review scope with the Editorial Committee and anticipates what referees evaluate in a commissioned review article.
Guides users through the ARSoc commissioning process: how to suggest a topic and craft a Committee-ready pitch. Does not include literature synthesis or submission handling.
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.