open-access-scout

name	open-access-scout
description	Use when finding open access journals, checking journal policies, or identifying predatory publishers. Helps researchers locate legitimate open access venues and avoid publication scams.
license	MIT
author	AIPOCH

Source: https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills

Open Access Journal Scout

Find legitimate open access journals, verify publisher credibility, and avoid predatory publication traps.

Quick Check

Use this command to verify that the packaged script entry point can be parsed before deeper execution.

python -m py_compile scripts/main.py

Audit-Ready Commands

Use these concrete commands for validation. They are intentionally self-contained and avoid placeholder paths.

python -m py_compile scripts/main.py
python scripts/main.py --help

When to Use

• Use this skill when the task needs Use when finding open access journals, checking journal policies, or identifying predatory publishers. Helps researchers locate legitimate open access venues and avoid publication scams.
• Use this skill for evidence insight tasks that require explicit assumptions, bounded scope, and a reproducible output format.
• Use this skill when you need a documented fallback path for missing inputs, execution errors, or partial evidence.

Workflow

1. Confirm the user objective, required inputs, and non-negotiable constraints before doing detailed work.
2. Validate that the request matches the documented scope and stop early if the task would require unsupported assumptions.
3. Use the packaged script path or the documented reasoning path with only the inputs that are actually available.
4. Return a structured result that separates assumptions, deliverables, risks, and unresolved items.
5. If execution fails or inputs are incomplete, switch to the fallback path and state exactly what blocked full completion.

Quick Start

from scripts.oa_scout import OpenAccessScout

scout = OpenAccessScout()

# Find journals
journals = scout.find_journals(
    subject="oncology",
    impact_range=(2, 5),
    max_apc=2000
)

Core Capabilities

1. Journal Search

results = scout.search(
    keywords=["immunotherapy", "cancer"],
    filters={
        "indexed_in": ["PubMed", "Scopus"],
        "peer_review": "double_blind",
        "apc_max": 2500
    }
)

2. Predatory Check

assessment = scout.assess_journal("Journal of Medical Advances")
print(f"Trust score: {assessment.score}/100")
print(f"Red flags: {assessment.red_flags}")

Warning Signs:

• No clear editorial board
• Rapid review promises (<2 weeks)
• Excessive APCs (>$3000)
• Not indexed in major databases
• Spam email invitations

3. APC Comparison

comparison = scout.compare_apc(
    journals=["Journal A", "Journal B"],
    currency="USD"
)

CLI Usage

python scripts/oa_scout.py --search "oncology immunotherapy" --max-apc 2000

---

Skill ID: 210 | Version: 1.0 | License: MIT

Output Requirements

Every final response should make these items explicit when they are relevant:

• Objective or requested deliverable
• Inputs used and assumptions introduced
• Workflow or decision path
• Core result, recommendation, or artifact
• Constraints, risks, caveats, or validation needs
• Unresolved items and next-step checks

Error Handling

• If required inputs are missing, state exactly which fields are missing and request only the minimum additional information.
• If the task goes outside the documented scope, stop instead of guessing or silently widening the assignment.
• If scripts/main.py fails, report the failure point, summarize what still can be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback.
• Do not fabricate files, citations, data, search results, or execution outcomes.

Input Validation

This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of open-access-scout and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.

Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:

open-access-scout only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.

References

• references/audit-reference.md - Supported scope, audit commands, and fallback boundaries

Response Template

Use the following fixed structure for non-trivial requests:

1. Objective
2. Inputs Received
3. Assumptions
4. Workflow
5. Deliverable
6. Risks and Limits
7. Next Checks

If the request is simple, you may compress the structure, but still keep assumptions and limits explicit when they affect correctness.

When Not to Use

• Do not proceed when required input files, identifiers, parameters, or context are missing — ask the user to provide them first.
• Do not assume capabilities beyond this skill's declared scope when the user requests external operations or inferences.
• Do not proceed without user confirmation when overwriting existing results, executing high-cost batch operations, or expanding task scope.

Required Inputs

Field	Required	Format/Source	Example	If Missing
User task description	Yes	Text	Research question, writing goal, analysis objective	Stop and ask user to provide
Primary input material	Depends on task	Text, file path, ID, table, or literature	PMID, PDF, CSV, DOCX, keywords, etc.	Specify which material type is missing
Output preference	No	Text	Language, format, target journal, template	Use skill default format

Output Contract

• Primary output: Structured result or target file aligned with this skill's objective.
• Optional output: Intermediate check notes, issue list, supplementary suggestions, or generated file paths.
• Format requirement: Unless the user specifies otherwise, prefer stable, reviewable Markdown or JSON; if the skill's bundled script requires a fixed format, use that format.
• If partially complete: Must explicitly mark as PARTIAL and state which steps are completed and which remain.

Failure Handling

• Missing critical input: Explicitly state which fields, files, or identifiers are missing and pause.
• Script, template, or resource execution failure: Report the failing step, likely cause, and recovery suggestions — do not silently degrade.
• Partial completion only: Return the verified portion first, then list remaining blockers and suggested next steps.

User Checkpoints

• Before executing batch processing, overwriting files, long-running searches, or multi-stage generation, confirm scope and output format with the user.
• Before proceeding when a key judgment is ambiguous, evidence is insufficient, or the workflow is entering the next stage, confirm with the user.

Quick Validation

• Check that key scripts, templates, or reference file paths this skill depends on exist.
• Check that the final output contains the core fields, sections, or files specified for this task.
• Check that results clearly mark assumptions, limitations, and incomplete items.