From sociological-theory-skills
Interprets Sociological Theory (ST) decision letters and explains the journal's double-anonymous peer review process, focusing on conceptual novelty and logical soundness.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/sociological-theory-skills:soctheory-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- You just received an ST decision letter and need to interpret it
ST uses double-anonymous peer review through SAGE's web-based system (Manuscript Central,
mc.manuscriptcentral.com/soct; 检索于 2026-06;以官网为准). The durable shape:
resources/official-source-map.md.)soctheory-contribution-framing), conceptual clarity, internal
consistency, the logical soundness of the argument, and engagement with the relevant
tradition. Reviewers do not ask about identification, sample size, robustness, or
measurement validity — those are ASR/AJS criteria.The editor screens for fit and contribution before sending a paper out. Most common ST desk rejects: (1) "this is an empirical paper" (a hypothesis test in disguise); (2) a literature review with no original theoretical move; (3) an "application" of a theory that does not change the theory; (4) conceptual relabeling presented as new theory; (5) an argument with no engaged tradition; (6) length/format/masking failures or out-of-scope submissions (route to ASR/AJS, Sociological Methodology, ARS, or Theory and Society).
| Signal in the letter | What it usually means | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| "Promising but the contribution is unclear" | Theory may be sound but under-differentiated | Re-run soctheory-contribution-framing |
| "Propositions are not well argued" | Reasoning gaps between premises and claims | Re-run soctheory-argument-development |
| "Reads as a review of the literature" | No real theoretical move | Re-run soctheory-literature-positioning + soctheory-writing-style |
| "Concepts are unclear / overlap existing ones" | Conceptual clarity challenged | Re-run soctheory-theory-construction (definition/extension) |
| "Theory over-reaches" | Scope unstated | Re-run soctheory-boundary-conditions |
| "Doesn't engage tradition T" | Positioning gap | Re-run soctheory-literature-positioning |
| Editor flags specific reviewer points as essential | The editor's priorities | Address these first and most fully |
soctheory-writing-style.soctheory-rebuttal).【Decision type】Reject / Major (R&R) / Minor
【Editor's priorities】ranked list
【Comment triage】substance: [...] | presentation: [...]
【Skill mapping】comment → soctheory-* skill
【Reviewer conflicts】[...]
【Go / no-go】pursue revision? rationale
【Next step】soctheory-rebuttal
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin sociological-theory-skillsRoutes to the appropriate soctheory-* sub-skill based on the current stage of a Sociological Theory manuscript. Decides which specialized skill to invoke next, from problem framing through peer-review revision.
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.
Calibrates expectations for the Organization Studies (OS) peer-review cycle, explaining desk-screen odds, decision types, and how to interpret editor/ reviewer signals.