agentsclimarketplace

Crim literature positioning

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Criminology-Skills/skills/crim-literature-positioning

Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。

Install
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill crim-literature-positioning

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when positioning a Criminology (ASC / Wiley) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution to the field's live debates, not a citation pile. Criminology readers expect engagement with the relevant theoretical tradition and the closest prior empirical work across the field's many disciplines. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

SKILL.md

5.0 KB, 996 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Literature Positioning (crim-literature-positioning)

A common reason criminology papers stall is that they read as "another dataset" rather than a move in a theoretical debate. Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it places the paper where a general criminology audience can see the open question and your move on it.

When to trigger

  • Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
  • A reviewer said you "missed key work" or "don't engage the theory"
  • Your empirics are solid but the paper doesn't connect to a criminological debate
  • You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers

How Criminology wants the literature engaged

  1. Engage the debate, not a pile of citations. Identify the live disagreement or open question — e.g., is desistance driven by cognitive change or social bonds? do hot-spot effects displace or diffuse? does procedural justice cause compliance? Cite the works that define it.
  2. Name the theoretical tradition. Locate the paper within (or against) a recognizable theory — social control, social learning, strain/GST, routine activity, life-course/age-graded informal control, labeling, deterrence, procedural justice, social disorganization/collective efficacy.
  3. Two audiences at once. Satisfy the specialists (you know the frontier) and the interdisciplinary readership (a developmental psychologist and a criminal-justice scholar both see why it matters).
  4. Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured, confounded, or untested, and why resolving it advances theory.
  5. Pre-empt the obvious objection. Reviewers are expert; name the strongest rival mechanism and say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to crim-research-design).

Cross-field engagement (a Criminology demand)

If your paper is…also engage…
a developmental/life-course studythe criminal-career and desistance debates, not just psychology
a neighborhoods-and-crime studysocial disorganization / collective-efficacy theory and spatial work
an experiment on policing or courtsdeterrence and procedural-justice/legitimacy theory
a measurement contributionthe substantive theories that will use the measure

Anti-patterns

  • A "literature dump" with no organizing theoretical debate
  • Engaging only one discipline's literature when the journal is interdisciplinary
  • Strawmanning prior theory, or hiding the closest competitor paper
  • Self-citation that breaks anonymity (the main document is anonymized — see crim-submission)
  • Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental

Positioning pass for Criminology

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the crime/justice process, measurement validity, research design, and policy consequence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: criminology reviewers who expect theory-linked crime, justice, or harm mechanisms plus transparent measurement.

  • Do the pass: Build a three-column map: incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, and this manuscript's delta; include one sibling-venue omission that would make a referee doubt the fit.
  • Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
  • Sibling guard: compare against Justice Quarterly for applied justice, Journal of Quantitative Criminology for methods focus, Social Problems for broader sociological framing; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
  • Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Debate】the live disagreement / open question
【Tradition】the theory the paper engages or challenges
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-field)
【Gap】what is contested / mismeasured / confounded / untested
【Move】how this paper changes the debate
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】crim-theory-building

Supplementary resources

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.