From sf-skills
Positions a Social Forces manuscript against the literature for a general social-science audience. Emphasizes sharp, economical engagement with debates given the 10,000-word cap.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/sf-skills:sf-literature-positioningThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Social Forces reaches a **general social-science** readership, so positioning has two jobs: convince a
Social Forces reaches a general social-science readership, so positioning has two jobs: convince a specialist you know the frontier, and convince a non-specialist the debate matters. And because the 10,000-word cap counts the reference list, you cannot bury the contribution under a citation pile — positioning at SF is necessarily lean.
sf-research-design).| Tempting habit | Leaner SF move |
|---|---|
| Five citations to make one point | one or two definitive cites |
| A paragraph cataloguing every prior study | a sentence naming the debate + its anchors |
| Re-citing the same work in every section | cite once where it does the most work |
| A "gap" built from many small omissions | one precise, consequential gap |
sf-submission)Social Forces, a long-standing flagship general sociology journal published by Oxford University Press for the Southern Sociological Society, draws referees across stratification, demography, work, family, culture, networks, and religion. A positioning section passes this gate:
| Referee question | Passing answer at SF | Early-decline signal |
|---|---|---|
| What debate does this enter? | One named disagreement with 3-5 anchor cites | A bibliography with no tension |
| Why should a non-specialist care? | General-sociology stakes in one sentence | "Important for [narrow subfield]" only |
| What is the precise gap? | A contested or mis-tested claim | "Has not been studied in [setting]" |
| Who is the closest rival? | Named, engaged, out-argued | The nearest competitor is invisible |
Calibration (hedged): SF sits a notch broader and less theory-maximalist than AJS or ASR — it rewards a methodologically solid, clearly-framed contribution over a sweeping theoretical statement, though the general-significance bar is still real.
A panel study of educational stratification finds first-generation students at broad-access colleges close about 30% of the completion gap (illustrative) when structured advising is present. Weak: "Few studies examine advising at broad-access colleges." SF-grade: "The reproduction literature treats institutional sorting as the binding constraint on first-gen attainment (anchors); we show advising is partly substitutable for selectivity, reframing whether 'where you enroll' or 'how you are supported' carries the mobility effect." That enters a debate, names the rival (pure-sorting account), and states the general-sociology stakes.
【Debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Key works】the 3-5 that define it (cite economically)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Reference budget】citation load consistent with a 10,000-word (incl. refs) cap? [Y/N]
【Next】sf-theory-building
../../resources/official-source-map.md — SF general audience, scope, and the reference-inclusive word capnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin sf-skillsPositions an ASR manuscript as a broad sociological contribution by framing the debate across subfields, naming the precise gap, and engaging the strongest rival account.
Maps a manuscript's positioning within current sociological debates for AJS submission. Helps frame the literature section to signal engagement with live theoretical tensions rather than filling gaps.
Guides evaluating whether a research project fits Social Forces journal's criteria for scope, theoretical grounding, and methodological rigor.