agentsclimarketplace

Publishing and peer review

Skill jjfroehlich/agent-skills-for-academic-research/skills/publishing-and-peer-review

Agent skills for academia research: writing, dataviz, publishing, communication, career, and more.

Install
npx -y skills add jjfroehlich/agent-skills-for-academic-research --skill publishing-and-peer-review

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

One thing to look at

  • 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when the user is acting as an author, reviewer, or editor-facing correspondent in a scientific publication process and needs help with journal submission packages, cover letters, presubmission or editor inquiries, peer-review reports, reviewer ethics, conflicts, confidentiality, editorial decision interpretation, appeals, transfers, resubmission strategy, or response-to-reviewers letters. Trigger on concrete publication-process decisions or artifacts, not on general manuscript prose editing, figure design, grant review, literature summaries, or journal-ranking curiosity without an active submission/review context.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

5.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Publishing And Peer Review

Purpose

Help the user make publication-process decisions and produce bounded artifacts for submission, peer review, editorial communication, revision, and response-to-reviewers work.

Use this skill when

  • The user needs a journal submission, presubmission inquiry, cover letter, rejection strategy, transfer decision, or resubmission package.
  • The user is writing, revising, or evaluating a peer-review report.
  • The request concerns reviewer ethics, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, confidential comments, open review, or reviewer overreach.
  • The user needs a response-to-reviewers plan, point-by-point response, or respectful disagreement with reviewer comments.
  • The user asks how to interpret an editorial decision, revision request, or reviewer recommendation.

Do not use this skill when

  • The user primarily wants manuscript prose rewritten; apply a scientific-writing lens instead.
  • The task is figure design, chart choice, or visual communication.
  • The request is about grant review, thesis supervision, career planning, or literature synthesis without a publication-process decision.
  • The user asks for journal rankings or impact-factor strategy without a concrete submission or review artifact.

Core workflow

  1. Identify the role: author, reviewer, editor-facing correspondent, or mixed role.
  2. Identify the next process action: submit, revise, appeal, transfer, decline, review, respond, or ask the editor a focused question.
  3. Ask only for missing facts that change the next action: decision letter, target journal, review invitation, manuscript type, deadline, or policy constraint.
  4. Route to the narrow playbook: journal submission, editorial process, peer reviewing, reviewer ethics, or response to reviewers.
  5. Separate process guidance from manuscript-quality feedback.
  6. Produce the artifact in a trackable format: checklist, review outline, cover-letter plan, editor inquiry, or point-by-point response.
  7. Check for ethics, confidentiality, reviewer overreach, and unsupported claims before finalizing.

Output formats

  • Submission-readiness review with journal-fit risks and missing package items.
  • Cover-letter or presubmission-inquiry outline.
  • Editorial-decision diagnosis with next-step options.
  • Peer-review report outline with major/minor comments and confidential-note guidance.
  • Reviewer-ethics decision memo.
  • Point-by-point response-to-reviewers plan or draft.

Reference routing

  • references/journal-submission.md: Use for journal fit, cover letters, submission packages, rejection strategy, appeal, transfer, and resubmission decisions.
  • references/editorial-process.md: Use for interpreting editor decisions, revision expectations, reviewer synthesis, and editor communication.
  • references/peer-reviewing.md: Use for review invitations, manuscript review workflow, review structure, constructive comments, reviewer overreach, and statistical-review triage.
  • references/reviewer-ethics.md: Use for conflict, confidentiality, privileged information, misconduct concerns, confidential comments, open review, or review transfer.
  • references/response-to-reviewers.md: Use for response letters, point-by-point plans, respectful disagreement, reviewer misunderstandings, and out-of-scope requested experiments.

Quick checklist

  • Role and next process action are explicit.
  • Advice is bounded to the current journal, manuscript, review invitation, or decision letter.
  • Major issues are separated from minor polish.
  • Any requested experiment or analysis is tied to a claim that actually needs it.
  • Confidential, ethical, or editor-only material is not put into author-facing text.
  • The output tells the user what to send, revise, decline, or ask next.

Common pitfalls

  • Treating a rejection as an appeal problem before diagnosing scope, evidence, novelty, or process error.
  • Writing peer reviews as unprioritized reactions instead of evidence-linked major and minor comments.
  • Asking authors for open-ended new projects when a claim limit, analysis clarification, or future-work statement would address the concern.
  • Responding defensively to reviewers without changing the manuscript or giving a clear rationale.
  • Exposing confidential review material, source provenance, raw URLs, or bibliography-style evidence in exported skill outputs.

Quality bar

  • The answer must be role-aware, process-aware, and ethically bounded.
  • The answer must produce a concrete next artifact or decision, not generic publication advice.
  • Reviewer and response language must be calm, specific, actionable, and traceable to manuscript claims.
  • Disagreements must state the concern, evidence or constraint, and the bounded change or non-change.
  • Exported outputs must avoid private provenance, source lists, citation maps, raw URLs, and DOI-like identifiers.

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.