Jacs referee strategy
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。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jacs-referee-strategyAssembled 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 suggesting/excluding reviewers and pre-empting likely referee objections for a Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) manuscript. Plans the review-facing strategy — it does not run experiments or write the paper.
SKILL.md
4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Referee Strategy (jacs-referee-strategy)
When to trigger
- You are choosing suggested and excluded reviewers for Paragon Plus
- You want to anticipate and disarm objections before submission
- You are stress-testing the manuscript as a skeptical referee would
- A revision is coming and you want to predict reviewer concerns
Choosing reviewers
- Suggested: independent experts who can judge the chemistry — across the relevant subfields (e.g., a synthesis expert and a mechanism/spectroscopy expert for a catalysis paper). No collaborators, advisors, or same-institution.
- Breadth coverage: because JACS is broad-scope, include at least one reviewer who can speak to the general-interest claim, not only the niche.
- Excluded: only with a brief, professional reason (direct competitor with a conflict, prior dispute). Keep the list short and credible.
Pre-empting the standard JACS objections
Referees at JACS predictably probe rigor and significance. Address each before they raise it:
| Likely objection | Pre-empt by |
|---|---|
| "Not broad enough for JACS" | Lead with the breadth driver; cite cross-field relevance |
| "Compound X is not fully characterized" | Complete SI characterization + purity for every compound |
| "Purity not demonstrated" | EA or HPLC/GC trace + clean NMR for key compounds |
| "Mechanism is speculative" | Add controls, kinetics, KIE, or labeling; soften unproven steps |
| "Scope is cherry-picked" | Report failed substrates; show functional-group tolerance |
| "Selectivity claim unsupported" | Provide ee/dr with method and racemate/standard traces |
| "Crystal structure not deposited" | CCDC number + checkCIF-clean CIF |
| "Yields/conditions not reproducible" | Procedures with scale/equiv; replicate key results |
| "Over-claimed novelty" | State closest prior art and the specific delta |
Reviewer-simulation pass
Read the manuscript once as a hostile referee and write the three harshest
defensible criticisms. For each, decide: (a) fix now with data, (b) soften the
claim, or (c) prepare a rebuttal point. Carry these into jacs-revision.
Checklist
- Suggested reviewers are independent and cover the needed expertise + breadth
- Excluded reviewers (if any) have a brief, professional justification
- Each standard objection above is addressed or has a planned response
- The three harshest defensible criticisms are written down
- Unproven claims are softened in language before submission
- Prior-art delta is explicit, pre-empting "incremental" charges
Anti-patterns
- Suggesting friends/collaborators as reviewers (editors notice)
- Excluding everyone competent under vague "competitor" claims
- Ignoring an obvious rigor gap and hoping a referee misses it
- Leaving an over-claim in place that a referee will seize on
- No breadth-competent reviewer for a paper whose pitch is broad interest
Operating pass for Journal of the American Chemical Society
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the chemical novelty, characterization chain, controls, and scope or mechanism evidence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: chemistry reviewers who expect a molecule/material/reaction claim to be supported by rigorous characterization and mechanistic insight.
- Do the pass: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger rather than a prose-only diagnosis; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript locationrows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue. - Sibling guard: compare against ACS Central Science for broad conceptual reach, Angewandte for communication style, specialized ACS journals for narrower chemistry; 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.mdhas been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Suggested】names/areas: synthesis [..], mechanism [..], breadth [..]
【Excluded】name — reason (brief)
【Objections pre-empted】[...]; planned rebuttals: [...]
【Top-3 hostile criticisms】1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
【Actions】fix-now: [...]; soften: [...]
【Next】jacs-submission (suggestions) → jacs-revision (after decision)
Related resources
jacs-cover-letter— where suggested/excluded reviewers are notedjacs-methods— closing the rigor gaps referees probe