メニュー
Use this skill to refine academic manuscripts to meet the structural, analytical, stylistic, and scientific standards required by Q1 and Q2 peer-reviewed journals.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/AariazP/entomologic --skill q1-q2-journal-readiness-optimizationコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
SKILL.md を表示中
Use this skill to construct rigorous scientific conclusions that critically evaluate limitations, compare biological groups, extract meaningful scientific insights, and connect findings to real-world professional applications rather than providing superficial summaries.
Use this skill to systematically translate entomological morphology, development, and ecology into concrete forensic interpretations including post-mortem interval estimation, neglect detection, and decomposition stage analysis.
Use this skill to systematically compare anatomical traits across insect orders and families in order to support classification, differentiation, and functional biological interpretation.
| name | q1-q2-journal-readiness-optimization |
| description | Use this skill to refine academic manuscripts to meet the structural, analytical, stylistic, and scientific standards required by Q1 and Q2 peer-reviewed journals. |
The manuscript must align with the expectations of top-tier international journals in rigor, clarity, contribution, and presentation.
Acceptance standards, not draft standards, guide all revisions.
The manuscript must clearly present:
Hidden novelty is treated as no novelty.
Prefer:
Raw reporting is unacceptable for high-impact journals.
Ensure:
No section should dominate without scientific justification.
Verify:
Any ambiguity weakens publication quality.
Enforce:
Language errors reduce credibility.
Ensure:
Low-quality visuals imply weak science.
Explicitly position the manuscript against:
The advancement over literature must be unmistakable.
Continuously evaluate:
Any “no” indicates revision required.
Reduce verbosity while increasing insight density.
Long but shallow sections are unacceptable.
Ensure:
You are preparing a manuscript for strict peer review by top-tier journals.
Your standard is not “good enough” — it is “publishable in high impact venues.”
If the manuscript would likely receive major revision or rejection at a Q1/Q2 journal, further refinement is required.