Claude Skills by brycewang-stanford

Use when positioning a Social Forces (SF) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to a general social-science audience. Because SF caps the manuscript at 10,000 words including the reference list, positioning must be sharp and economical. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to a Social Forces (SF) revise-and-resubmit. SF reviewers prize methodological rigor and general significance, and most published papers go through at least one R&R, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor — all while keeping the revision within the reference-inclusive 10,000-word and 10-panel limits. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Social Forces (SF) manuscript — causal identification for quantitative work, formal demographic design, case selection and process tracing for comparative-historical and ethnographic work, network and computational designs. SF's reputation rests on methodological rigor. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how Social Forces (SF) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymized review via ScholarOne, what expert reviewers weigh (rigor, general significance, theoretical grounding), the typical decision categories, and the journal's reported review timeline. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Social Forces (SF) via ScholarOne Manuscript Central — double-anonymized preparation with a separate title page, the reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap, the 10 tables-and-figure-panels limit, Chicago 17th author-date, the data availability statement, ORCID, and the $50 processing fee. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Social Forces (SF) manuscript. SF imposes a hard limit of 10 tables and figure panels and a 10-page supplementary-materials cap, so exhibits must be selected and consolidated deliberately. Designs and rations exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of a Social Forces (SF) manuscript into a portable, general-audience contribution — whether the work is quantitative, demographic, comparative-historical, ethnographic, network, or computational. SF prizes a theoretically grounded result over a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Social Forces (SF) and how to frame it. SF is a general social-science journal (centered on sociology) that prizes methodological rigor and a theoretically grounded contribution of interest to a broad audience. Helps frame the question and judge fit; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any Social Forces (SF) manuscript. Routes to the right SF sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle, keeping the paper aimed at a general social-science audience and inside the journal's reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap and 10-panel exhibit limit. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Social Forces (SF) manuscript so it reads for a general social-science audience, follows Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.) author-date, and fits the reference-inclusive 10,000-word cap. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript so it survives expert, masked review — honest uncertainty, robustness, sound measurement, and reporting appropriate to experiments, surveys/secondary data, or interpretive analysis in sociological social psychology. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when preparing the data, materials, and transparency posture for a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript. SPQ ENCOURAGES sharing data, code, and materials but does NOT require it, and willingness to share has no impact on acceptance; the journal follows the ASA data-sharing norm and Code of Ethics. Covers quantitative and qualitative/interpretive transparency and confidentiality. Prepares the posture; it does not invent requirements.

Use when positioning a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to sociological social psychology. SPQ readers expect engagement with the field's own traditions and theoretical programs — symbolic interaction, social structure and personality, group processes, identity, affect — not a generic citation pile or a purely psychological framing. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) revise-and-resubmit. SPQ reviewers come from different sociological-social-psychology traditions and may pull in different directions, so the response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor while protecting the structure–individual contribution. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript — laboratory and survey experiments (group processes, status), survey and secondary-data analysis (social structure and personality), or observation/ethnography and interviews (symbolic interaction). SPQ judges each tradition on its own terms but always asks how the design captures the link between structure and the individual. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) evaluates a manuscript — masked (blinded) review, the blinding check that temporarily rejects under-blinded papers, what reviewers from different sociological-social-psychology traditions weigh, and the reject / revise-and-resubmit / accept decision pattern. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) via SageTrack / ScholarOne Manuscript Central — article type, blinded manuscript plus separate title page, word/abstract caps, keywords, ASA Style Guide formatting, the $25 processing fee and its waivers, and ethics. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, and formatted to the ASA Style Guide. SPQ exhibits must communicate the structure–individual link clearly to a mixed sociology/psychology readership and fit within the word budget. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript into a contribution to sociological social psychology — whether the work is in the symbolic-interaction, social-structure-and-personality, group-processes, identity, or affect tradition. SPQ rewards an explicit social-psychological mechanism linking structure to the individual, not a bare finding. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a project fits Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) and whether to target an Article or a Note. SPQ is the leading journal of sociological social psychology, so the test is whether the work illuminates the link between social structure and the individual — not whether it is a clever psychology finding or a macro-sociology result. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript. Routes to the right SPQ sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which sociological-social-psychology tradition (symbolic interaction, social structure and personality, group processes, status/affect, identity) and article type (Article vs. Note) fit. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing a Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) manuscript so it reads for a sociological-social-psychology audience, follows the ASA Style Guide, and fits the word caps (Articles ~10,000 words; Notes ~5,000; abstract ~150 words, non-identifying, with keywords). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when writing or fixing the abstract and keywords for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — a 200–300 Chinese-character abstract that leads with the original proposition and contribution (not background), 3–5 keywords, and an aligned high-quality English abstract. Use at the polishing stage.

Use when tightening the logical argument and conceptual rigor of a 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) manuscript — making concept definitions explicit, ensuring each section advances the core proposition, and keeping theoretical / normative reasoning valid (not replaced by data tables). Applies to theoretical, normative, and historical-comparative papers as much as empirical ones.

Use when handling empirical evidence in a 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) manuscript — choosing among quantitative, qualitative, and historical-comparative methods so the method serves the proposition, and translating any analysis (including regressions) into a thesis-level finding rather than a coefficient dump. Use when evidence feels disconnected from the argument or reads as method-flexing.

Use to judge whether a manuscript is on-target for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) before investing in revision — screening for 思想分量 over technical sophistication, big-question level, cross-disciplinary reach, and original theory — and to recommend a better venue when fit is low. The most common save: stopping a niche empirical paper from being mis-submitted.

Use when building or fixing the literature review for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — entering the theoretical lineage (classic authors and schools) rather than piling up recent empirical citations, and positioning the paper as a move within an ongoing scholarly conversation. Use when references are a variable-list instead of a theory dialogue.

Use when responding to external-review (外审) comments from 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — drafting a point-by-point response letter that defends or strengthens the original proposition, deepens theory and cross-disciplinary dialogue, and revises the manuscript before writing replies. Use after revising the text, not before.

Use when polishing the language and rhetoric of a 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) manuscript — replacing policy-report tone and empty-significance phrases with scholarly argument, keeping a grand-but-restrained register, and ensuring paragraph-leading topic sentences. Use after the proposition and argument are settled.

Use for the pre-submission preflight to 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — checking footnote (页下注) conventions, abstract/keyword limits, bilingual title/abstract, the online submission system (sscp.portal.founderss.cn), anonymity, and document hygiene. Use right before submitting; verify every rule against the journal's current 投稿须知.

Use when articulating the original theoretical contribution for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — turning empirical findings into a concept / proposition / analytical framework, and positioning the work within China's autonomous knowledge system (自主知识体系) rather than verifying imported theory. Use when the contribution still reads as "we find that X affects Y".

Use when framing or sharpening the research problem (问题意识 / problematic) for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — elevating a topic from a narrow empirical question to a 重大理论与现实问题, locating the live scholarly controversy, and tying it to China's development / 时代之问. Use before writing the introduction.

Use when deciding which ssc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from problematic framing through rebuttal for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China). Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use to write the abstract and keywords for 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) per the journal's norms — Chinese abstract ≤ 200 characters, 3–5 Chinese keywords, English abstract ≤ 150 words, leading with the sociological problematic and the mechanism/concept rather than background. Facts from resources/journal-profile.md.

Use to extract concepts or mechanisms from empirical materials for 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — naming a phenomenon, defining it, bounding it, and moving back and forth between materials and sociological theory. Use especially for qualitative work that risks staying at the level of description.

Use to judge whether a manuscript fits 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — distinguishing a genuine sociological problematic from an economics-style policy-evaluation paper, and re-routing the latter to economics or cross-disciplinary journals. Use first, before drafting, when discipline fit is uncertain.

Use to translate coefficients or fieldwork materials into a social process for 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — specifying who, via what mechanism, under what structural conditions, forms what social outcome or structure. Use when results stop at significance or at a vivid story without an explicit mechanism.

Use to build a sociological problem consciousness (问题意识) for 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — turning a variable relationship or a pile of fieldwork into a question about how a social mechanism, structure, or process works. Use when the manuscript still reads as "X affects Y" without a sociological stake.

Use for the qualitative path in 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — fieldwork ethnography, in-depth interviews, the extended case method, or grounded theory. Ensures material richness, coding transparency, reflexivity, and trustworthiness, and pushes from story-retelling toward concept building. Use when the draft is a narrative without analytic traction.

Use for the quantitative path in 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — analyzing survey data (CGSS/CFPS/CLDS) with regression / Logit / multilevel / event-history (survival) / sequence analysis, and interpreting results as a sociological mechanism rather than entering an econometric identification arms race. Use when the draft only reports coefficients.

Use to draft the response letter for an R&R at 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — addressing reviewer concerns about sociological problematic, theory dialogue, mechanism/social process, qualitative trustworthiness, or quantitative interpretation, point by point, with respect and evidence. Use only after the manuscript itself has been revised.

Use when polishing the language of a 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) manuscript — removing both policy-report tone (加强/完善/推进) and pure-technique tone (method-flexing), and restoring a scholarly sociological register with paragraph-leading topic sentences. Use after the problematic and mechanism are settled.

Use for the pre-submission preflight to 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — checking in-text author-date citation (作者, 年: 页) plus end references (GB/T 7714, A–Z, 中外文分列), explanatory footnotes, abstract/keyword limits, the official online system (the journal's only channel), anonymity, and document hygiene. Verify every rule against the journal's current 投稿指南.

Use to build genuine dialogue with classic and contemporary sociological theory for 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies) — entering a theoretical lineage (stratification, networks, institutions, culture, action) rather than piling up recent empirical citations. Use when the literature review is a variable list, not a conversation.

Use when deciding which socs-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from problematic framing through rebuttal for 《社会学研究》 (Sociological Studies). Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills, and re-routes off-discipline drafts to other journal packs.

Use when sharpening the contribution claim of a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript so it lands as a contribution to *strategy theory*. Frames the "so what"; it does not develop the theory or run analysis.

Use when estimating models and defeating endogeneity for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript — the single highest bar at SMJ. Executes and stress-tests the identification design from smj-methods; it does not design the study or build exhibits.

Use when positioning a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript within the live strategy conversation. Structures the framing and gap; it does not build the mechanism (see smj-theory-development) or frame the contribution claim (see smj-contribution-framing).

Use when designing the research method for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript — sample, unit of analysis, measures, and the identification strategy. Designs the study; estimation and endogeneity execution live in smj-data-analysis.

Use when drafting the response letter and revising a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript after an R&R decision. Structures the point-by-point response; it assumes the revision plan from smj-review-process is set.