agentsclimarketplace

Demog literature positioning

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Demography-Skills/skills/demog-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 demog-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 Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript against the population-science literature so it reads as a contribution of general interest to demographers. Demography readers span fertility, mortality, migration, family, and health, so the paper must engage the demographic literatures they expect. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

SKILL.md

5.0 KB, 956 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Literature Positioning (demog-literature-positioning)

Demography editors screen for whether a paper is "of general interest to demographers." A paper that engages only a narrow applied literature — and not the demographic conversation it belongs to — reads as off-fit and risks desk rejection. The goal is to place the paper where population scientists across components can see the gap and the move.

When to trigger

  • Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
  • A reviewer said you "missed the demographic literature" or "this is just an applied paper"
  • Your applied literature is solid but the paper doesn't connect to population science
  • You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior demographic work

How Demography wants the literature engaged

  1. Engage the demographic conversation, not a pile of citations. Identify the open question in population science your paper speaks to — a contested trend, an unexplained gap, a measurement dispute, a mechanism debate.
  2. Two audiences at once. Satisfy specialists in your component (you know the frontier) and general demographers (why it matters for population change). A mortality reader should see why your fertility paper matters.
  3. Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is mismeasured, undertheorized, or contested in the demographic record, and why resolving it advances population science.
  4. Position the contribution as a move. "Prior work attributes the trend to X; we decompose it and show component Y, not X, drives it" — or "the standard measure conflates tempo and quantum; we separate them."
  5. Pre-empt the obvious objection. Reviewers are expert demographers; acknowledge the strongest rival explanation and say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to demog-research-design).

Cross-component engagement (a distinctive Demography demand)

If your paper is…also engage…
an estimate of a fertility/mortality/migration trendthe broader population-change literature it bears on
a measurement or formal-demographic advancethe substantive literatures that will use the measure
a single-country casethe comparative/general demographic theory it speaks to
a health or family outcomethe demographic consequences (aging, structure, life expectancy)

Anti-patterns

  • A "literature dump" with no organizing demographic question
  • Engaging only a narrow applied (e.g., clinical or single-policy) literature
  • Strawmanning prior demographic estimates, or hiding the closest competitor study
  • Self-citation that breaks double-blind anonymity (avoid self-identifying references — see demog-submission)
  • Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental

Positioning pass for Demography

Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the demographic process, data source, time scale, selection/migration/mortality issue, and uncertainty; then test whether the manuscript addresses population-science reviewers who inspect demographic process, measurement, cohort/period logic, and population validity.

  • Primary move: 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.
  • Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
  • Sibling comparison: compare against Population and Development Review for policy synthesis, JMF for family process, Social Forces for broader sociology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
  • Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Conversation】the open demographic question / contested trend
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-component)
【Gap】what is mismeasured / unexplained / contested
【Move】how this paper changes the demographic record or understanding
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】demog-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.