Browse reusable Agent Skills, each with a clear purpose and practical guidance.
Use when executing and reporting the analysis for a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript so it survives expert, double-blind review — honest uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation appropriate to quantitative, experimental, or computational work. Guides analysis norms; it does not fabricate results.
Use when defending the research design of a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript — causal identification for quantitative work, case selection and process tracing for qualitative work, experimental and survey-experimental design, or formal-empirical linkage. BJPS judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.
Use to understand how the British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review with at least two referees, the desk screen, decision categories, and what reviewers are asked to weigh. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
Use when deciding whether a political-science project fits the British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) and which of its three formats to target. BJPS is a broad, internationally-oriented general journal, so the test is wide interest across subfields and beyond one national case, not subfield novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.
Use when targeting British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for computer vision.
Use when targeting the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) or deciding whether a broad-interest atmospheric/oceanic/hydrologic-sciences contribution fits this venue. Encodes the journal's review-and-community positioning, the broad-audience-significance bar, synthesis and field-campaign expectations, AMS house style, official-submission re-check, and misfit heuristics.
Use when running and reporting the analysis for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — the right estimator for archival/capital-markets, experimental, or analytical-calibration work, robustness, and CAR's Data Integrity & Code Sharing Policy (code archiving, variable definitions, data availability statement). Executes and reports; it does not design the study (car-methods).
Use when the research design and identification are the bottleneck for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — choosing and defending an archival, experimental, analytical, field, or survey design and, for human-participant work, meeting CAR's mandatory ethics-approval verification. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation (car-data-analysis).
Use when you need to understand how Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) evaluates a manuscript — the double-anonymous, two-reviewer process, the role of the subject Editor and the EIC who approves all acceptances, generative-AI rules for reviewers, and CAR's formal appeals process. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (car-rebuttal).
Use when choosing or sharpening a research question for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — testing fit with CAR's deliberately method-agnostic, all-topic-areas accounting scope and picking the research tradition (archival, experimental, analytical, field, qualitative) that the question demands.