From comparative-political-studies-skills
Anticipates CPS manuscript evaluation — desk screening, peer review, decision categories, and what comparativists reward/punish. Use before submission to stress-test the paper.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/comparative-political-studies-skills:cps-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Knowing how CPS evaluates a paper lets you preempt the objections before submitting. CPS uses
Knowing how CPS evaluates a paper lets you preempt the objections before submitting. CPS uses anonymous peer review via SAGE Track (ScholarOne); the manuscript is screened by an editor first, then sent to reviewers if it clears desk evaluation. Comparativists review for comparative leverage, travel, and methodological soundness on the paper's own terms.
| Reviewers reward | Reviewers punish |
|---|---|
| Clear comparative leverage and a portable mechanism | Single-case study with no comparative claim |
| Design that rules out the leading rival | "Causal" language on a cross-national correlation |
| Cross-national measurement handled transparently | Cherry-picked codings; few-cluster SEs ignored |
| Engagement with the comparative literature beyond one region | Regional insularity; reinventing a known result |
| Replication-ready materials and a data availability statement | Opaque, un-reproducible analysis |
cps-rebuttal).cps-transparency-and-data).Exact decision labels, timelines, desk-reject rates, and number of reviewers are not fixed public figures — confirm on the SAGE author page; treat the above as the working model (检索于 2026-06;以官网为准).
cps-research-design or cps-data-analysis.cps-workflow before you submit.【Desk-screen risk】comparative contribution clear on page one? [Y/N]
【Strongest objection】+ the one-paragraph + one-exhibit answer
【Inference/measurement】defensible for a comparative reviewer? [Y/N]
【Transparency ready】Dataverse package + data availability statement? [Y/N]
【Decision expected】reject / R&R / (conditional) accept
【Next】cps-submission (if ready) or back to design/analysis
../../resources/official-source-map.md — CPS review model and portal../../resources/exemplars/library.md — what cleared review at CPS, by subfield × methodnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin comparative-political-studies-skillsExplains APSR's double-anonymous review process, desk-rejection grounds, decision categories, and Registered Reports route to help authors pre-empt failure modes before submitting.
Explains the double-blind review, desk screening, efficient review process, and replicability check for The Journal of Politics (JOP). Helps shape manuscripts to pass each stage.
Explains World Politics triple-blind review process, scope screening, reviewer expectations, and human-subjects requirements to help authors pre-empt failure modes before submitting.