From public-administration-review-skills
Explains PAR's double-blind review, desk screening criteria, decision spectrum, and article types to help shape manuscripts for acceptance.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/public-administration-review-skills:pubar-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Knowing how PAR screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. PAR is the
Knowing how PAR screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. PAR is the ASPA flagship, edited by a team (Editors-in-Chief plus associate/handling editors), and runs double-blind peer review with a strong expectation that every article bridges research and practice.
pubar-submission).【Desk-screen check】fit / scope / practice-relevance — any red flags?
【Significance】field-wide PA, not niche? [Y/N]
【Practitioner so-what】honest and analysis-backed? [Y/N]
【Article type】Scholarly Take / Conceptualizing PA / Early Career Intel / Practically Speaking
【Realistic outcome】reject / major / minor / (rare) accept
【Next】pubar-submission (or pubar-rebuttal if decided)
The handling editor and reviewers read each submission against the expectations of its article type and against PAR's research-and-practice mission. Calibrate to whichever lens is decisive, but expect both the scholarly and the practitioner lens to be in the room.
| What the paper claims | The check a PAR referee runs first | The fix that earns the benefit of the doubt |
|---|---|---|
| A causal effect of a reform | Does the design license the causal word — and the policy advice? | State estimand + assumption; sensitivity analysis; scope the takeaway |
| A behavioral effect (experiment) | Is it pre-registered, powered, and realistic for public servants/citizens? | Pre-registered estimand, MDE, realistic task, randomization inference |
| A new construct / measure | Is it valid, reliable, and distinct from neighbors? | Construct validation, reliability, discriminant evidence |
| A conceptual reframing | Does it change what empirical scholars must now account for? | A portable concept with observable implications, not a relabel |
| A practitioner takeaway | Does the Evidence for Practice follow from the analysis? | Tie each point to a confirmatory estimate, not an exploratory one |
../../resources/official-source-map.md — peer-review model, article types, editorial teamnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin public-administration-review-skillsRoutes PAR manuscript authors to the correct sub-skill based on article type and lifecycle stage. Dispatches without drafting content.
Describes the JPART peer review process to help pre-empt desk rejection. Covers double-blind review, screening for theory contribution and fit, decision categories, and how to shape the paper for review.
Explains JPAM's review process — desk screening, double-blind peer review, article types, and what referees reward or punish — to help pre-empt objections before submission.