agentsclimarketplace

Demog review process

Skill brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/Demography-Skills/skills/demog-review-process

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-review-process

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 to understand how Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review, pre-review/desk screening by the Editor or a Deputy Editor, the role of topic-area Deputy Editors, and the grounds for desk rejection (inappropriate fit or unlikely to receive favorable reviews). Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

SKILL.md

4.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review Process (demog-review-process)

Knowing how Demography screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. Demography is double-blind and runs a pre-review with the Editor or a Deputy Editor before external review.

When to trigger

  • Before submitting, to stress-test against desk-rejection grounds
  • Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
  • Understanding the role of topic-area Deputy Editors
  • Deciding how to anonymize and how to frame general interest

How Demography review works

  1. Double-blind. Authors are not told reviewer names and reviewers are not told author names. Avoid self-identifying references so anonymity holds (see demog-submission).
  2. Pre-review / desk screening first. Every manuscript passes a pre-review with the Editor or an assigned Deputy Editor. It is first checked for compliance with word and table/figure limits, then assessed for suitability. A paper may be desk-rejected when it is (1) inappropriate for Demography or (2) unlikely to receive favorable evaluations from external reviewers. Desk rejections usually occur within the first few weeks.
  3. Topic-area Deputy Editors. Deputy Editors who specialize in the major areas of demography help select expert reviewers, synthesize the reviews, and make a recommendation to the Editor.
  4. External review. Manuscripts passing the desk go to expert demographer reviewers.
  5. Decision and revision. Standard scholarly outcomes (reject / revise-and-resubmit / accept); confirm the exact categories and any timelines on the official page (see 待核实).

Shape the paper to pass

  • Make general interest to demographers explicit (avoids the "inappropriate for Demography" desk rejection) — see demog-topic-selection and demog-literature-positioning.
  • Meet the word and table/figure limits before submitting (the pre-review checks compliance first).
  • Get the demographic method right (rates, exposure, identification) so expert reviewers see rigor.
  • Anticipate the strongest rival demographic explanation and answer it in the design.

Anti-patterns

  • Submitting a paper that uses demographic data but asks no population question (fit desk rejection)
  • Exceeding the word or table/figure limits (caught at the compliance pre-review)
  • Leaving self-identifying references that compromise double-blind review
  • Expecting external review for a paper unlikely to earn favorable reviews — that is a desk-reject ground

Review-risk 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: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
  • 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

【Fit check】is it appropriate for Demography (a population question of general interest)? [Y/N]
【Compliance】word + table/figure limits met for the chosen type? [Y/N]
【Method rigor】rates/exposure/identification defensible to expert reviewers? [Y/N]
【Anonymity】no self-identifying references? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】desk-reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】demog-submission (or demog-rebuttal if decided)

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.