Revedres editor 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 revedres-editor-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 anticipating editor and reviewer expectations, framing the contribution, and positioning scope for a Review of Educational Research (RER) submission. Aligns the review with how RER is refereed; it does not run the submission preflight (revedres-submission) or draft the response to reviewers (revedres-revision).
SKILL.md
5.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Editor & Reviewer Strategy (revedres-editor-strategy)
When to trigger
- The review is drafted and you need to see it as RER's editors and reviewers will
- You are unsure whether the contribution will read as "advance" or "competent summary"
- You want to pre-empt the predictable reviewer objections before they are written
- You are weighing RER against a sibling venue and need the fit call
How RER is refereed (and what that means for you)
RER reviews are submitted and peer-reviewed by AERA/SAGE — there is no commissioning editor pre-clearing your topic, so the manuscript must win on its own. The co-editors (the most-recent-listed team based at Penn State — Boveda, Ford, Frankenberg, López; publicized as the 2022–2025 team, with no 2026+ successor team announced as of 2026-06-23 web search; 检索于 2026-06-23，以官网为准) desk-screen for fit and rigor before assigning masked reviewers. Two questions decide the manuscript:
- Is it genuinely integrative and advancing? RER explicitly does not want annotated bibliographies or thin stock-takes. Reviewers ask: does the framework reorganize the field and move theory or policy?
- Is the review itself rigorous? For systematic reviews/meta-analyses: documented exhaustive search (PRISMA), reliable coding, defensible models, risk-of-bias, and sensitivity analysis. Process rigor is not negotiable.
Consult the Guidelines for Reviewers RER publishes — they state the criteria your manuscript is judged on; write to them.
The predictable reviewer objections (pre-empt each)
| Objection | Where it is answered |
|---|---|
| "This is a summary, not an integration." | revedres-organizing-framework — name the spine and the advance up front |
| "The search is incomplete / not reproducible." | revedres-literature-synthesis + PRISMA flow |
| "Coding reliability is unstated." | revedres-transparency-and-reproducibility — report κ/ICC |
| "The pooled effect ignores heterogeneity / bias." | revedres-comprehensiveness-and-balance — I², moderators, funnel, sensitivity |
| "Conflicting findings are vote-counted." | weigh by estimand + design quality, steelman camps |
| "The author over-cites their own program." | bracket self-work; emphasis identity-blind |
| "This belongs at AERJ / AERA Open." | confirm it is a review, not original empirical research |
Scope and contribution framing
- Lead with the advance, not the gap. "No one has reviewed X" is weak; "the field disagrees because studies estimate different objects, and this taxonomy reconciles them" is strong.
- Right-size the scope so the search is provably exhaustive yet the contribution matters across education.
- Name the audience — RER's broad, cross-disciplinary education readership — and write the contribution in their terms.
Sibling-venue fit (route honestly)
| Venue | Take it there instead when… |
|---|---|
| AERJ / AERA Open | the core is original empirical research, not a synthesis |
| Educational Researcher | it is a short commentary, policy essay, or methodological brief, not a comprehensive review |
| Review of Research in Education | it fits a commissioned thematic volume, not an unsolicited integrative review |
| Psychological Bulletin | it is a psychology review with no central bearing on education |
| Annual Reviews / discipline handbooks | the piece is an invited, non-systematic overview |
Checklist
- Contribution framed as an advance (reconciles/reframes), not just "no prior review"
- Manuscript written to RER's published Guidelines for Reviewers
- Each predictable objection (summary / search / coding / heterogeneity / vote-count / self-cite) pre-empted in the text
- Scope right-sized: provably exhaustive search and cross-education importance
- Audience named and addressed (broad, cross-disciplinary education readership)
- Sibling-venue fit checked; RER is the right home (not AERJ / ER / RRE / Psych Bulletin)
Anti-patterns
- Pitching the gap ("nobody has done this") instead of the advance
- Submitting a competent summary and hoping reviewers see integration the text does not state
- Ignoring the Guidelines for Reviewers and being surprised by the criteria
- Writing for a sub-specialty when RER's readership is broad
- Sending original empirical research to a review journal (a desk-reject)
Output format
【Contribution framing】advance stated (reconcile/reframe), not just gap? Y/N
【Reviewer-guidelines fit】written to RER's published criteria? Y/N
【Objections pre-empted】summary / search / coding / heterogeneity / vote-count / self-cite — all addressed? Y/N
【Scope】exhaustive search + cross-education importance? Y/N
【Audience】broad education readership addressed? Y/N
【Sibling check】RER is the right venue (not AERJ/ER/RRE/Psych Bulletin)? Y/N
【Next step】→ revedres-submission (Manuscript Central preflight)