From wp-skills
Explains World Politics triple-blind review process, scope screening, reviewer expectations, and human-subjects requirements to help authors pre-empt failure modes before submitting.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/wp-skills:wp-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Knowing how World Politics screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting.
Knowing how World Politics screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. World Politics uses a triple-blind process and screens for scope (comparative politics / IR; no opinion, policy, theory-only, historical, or journalistic pieces) before and during review.
wp-submission); clear ethics/IRB up front.Screening at World Politics is a scope-and-significance gate before the methods read. Knowing which failure triggers which response lets you pre-empt it.
| Failure at screen/review | What happens | Pre-empt before submitting |
|---|---|---|
| Out of scope (opinion/policy/theory-only/historical/journalistic) | May be withdrawn by editors | Reframe as a comparative or IR empirical study, or target another venue |
| Single-case description, no cross-case payoff | Weak-fit / low-significance read | Attach the case to a portable mechanism that travels |
| Literatures or design left implicit | Reviewer criticism | Engage the live debate; state design and methods explicitly |
| Identifying info left in text/metadata | Anonymity broken | Strip self-references and file metadata |
Calibration anchor: World Politics is a leading peer-reviewed journal of comparative politics and international relations, methodologically plural (comparative, quantitative, qualitative, and formal), and it prizes a big political question with theory that travels over narrow empirics. Tune to that bar, not a generalist or IR-only one.
Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the political mechanism, case scope, evidence warrant, and comparative or international implication; then test whether the manuscript addresses comparative and international politics reviewers who expect a big political question, credible evidence, and theory that travels beyond one case.
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.【Scope check】comparative/IR, not opinion/policy/theory-only/historical/journalistic? [Y/N]
【Travels】cross-case contribution explicit? [Y/N]
【Literatures + methods】engaged and explicit? [Y/N]
【Anonymized for triple-blind】[Y/N]
【Ethics】APSA human-subjects affirmation handled? [Y/N/NA]
【Next】wp-submission (or wp-rebuttal if decided)
../../resources/official-source-map.md — triple-blind process, reviewer norms, timeline, scope, APSA ethicsnpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin wp-skillsExplains 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 APSR's double-anonymous review process, desk-rejection grounds, decision categories, and Registered Reports route to help authors pre-empt failure modes before submitting.
Understands the BJPS double-blind review process to pre-empt desk-screen failures and shape manuscripts for submission.