From sf-skills
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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/sf-skills:sf-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Knowing how Social Forces screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. SF
Knowing how Social Forces screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. SF is double-anonymized and managed through ScholarOne Manuscript Central for the editorial office at the UNC Department of Sociology. Its reviewers prize methodological rigor, general social-science significance, and a theoretically grounded contribution.
sf-submission).sf-data-analysis).sf-theory-building).The wording of a Social Forces decision maps to a posture. Use it to set expectations before you react:
| Letter signal | Likely posture | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| "Of interest but not yet for a general audience" | Reframe-or-decline | Recast significance (see sf-literature-positioning) |
| "Revise and resubmit, address identification" | Live R&R | Treat the editor's points as the rubric |
| "Reviewers split on contribution" | Borderline | Sharpen the portable argument |
| "Does not fit our scope" | Decline | Consider a subfield outlet |
Worked vignette (illustrative): a stratification paper with a 0.15 SD estimate (illustrative) returns an R&R where the editor stresses one reviewer's selection concern and waves off a second reviewer's style gripe. Read literally, the decision is "fix selection, polish lightly" — so the falsification test, not the prose, is where the revision effort goes.
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the social mechanism, data scope, identification or interpretation, and contribution to a wider literature; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: social-science reviewers who want generalizable social-process evidence across sociology, demography, and policy-adjacent topics.
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.【Fit】general social-science significance clear to a non-specialist? [Y/N]
【Rigor】identification + measurement + honest uncertainty? [Y/N]
【Theory】portable contribution, not a bare finding? [Y/N]
【Format】≤ 10,000 words (incl. refs) and ≤ 10 panels? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】sf-submission (or sf-rebuttal if decided)
../../resources/official-source-map.md — double-anonymized review, ScholarOne, reported review timelinenpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin sf-skillsExplains 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.
Explains ASR's masked peer review process, decision categories, and ethics rules to help shape manuscripts for submission.
Guides evaluating whether a research project fits Social Forces journal's criteria for scope, theoretical grounding, and methodological rigor.