메뉴
Use when a user needs a journal-specific pre-submission compliance review of a manuscript draft against a target journal's Author Guidelines and observed same-journal conventions. Not for drafting prose, simulating peer review, or predicting acceptance.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | journal-fit |
| description | Use when a user needs a journal-specific pre-submission compliance review of a manuscript draft against a target journal's Author Guidelines and observed same-journal conventions. Not for drafting prose, simulating peer review, or predicting acceptance. |
Run a journal-specific pre-submission review: diagnose whether a manuscript meets the target journal's Author Guidelines, submission requirements, and observable same-journal conventions. This is not peer-review simulation or an acceptance/rejection judgment. The skill does two things only: check the draft and give revision directions. Do not draft replacement prose, rewrite sections, or create writing templates unless the user explicitly switches to a writing/polishing task.
references/guidelines-fallback-matrix.md (readers and proxies before search snippets and third-party summaries), and only then ask the user to paste the official text.Most users do not know which diagnostic scope they need. Do not force them to choose technical categories before they understand the problem. If the request is vague, default to Quick Check and proceed.
Vague requests include:
Collect only the minimum missing inputs:
.docx, .pdf, .md, and .txt.If both are available, do not ask the user to choose A/B/C/D/E. State the default and run:
I will start with Quick Check: confirmed Author Guidelines requirements, abstract/keywords, required submission items, obvious missing statements, and clear format risks. I will not rewrite, polish, or run expensive deep benchmarking unless needed.
Ask at most one scope question when the user appears to want something beyond Quick Check:
Do you want a quick check, a full pre-submission check, or a section-specific check? If unsure, I will start with Quick Check.
Use this mapping internally. Do not dump the table on novice users unless helpful.
| User concern | Internal scope | Run |
|---|---|---|
| "会不会被编辑部/投稿系统退回" | Quick Check / Format compliance | Author Guidelines essentials only |
| "准备正式投稿前帮我完整把关" | Submission readiness | Format compliance + selected same-journal benchmarks |
| "和这个期刊常见写法差多远" | Style alignment | Same-journal, same-topic benchmark |
| "只看摘要/引言/结论" | Section-specific fit | One named section compared with exemplars |
| "英语表达/语言风格像不像" | Language style | OA full-text language features, only when enough full text exists |
Quick Check includes:
Quick Check excludes by default:
After Quick Check, recommend an upgrade only when useful: full pre-submission check, same-journal benchmark, language-style analysis, or section-specific fit.
Resolve journal identity first: title, ISSN, publisher, article type, and target manuscript type when relevant.
For Author Guidelines, prefer sources in this order:
TAVILY_API_KEY is already available.https://r.jina.ai/{url}, then https://defuddle.md/{url}, then agent-fetch only if it is already installed or available through npx.If automatic retrieval is needed, read references/guidelines-fallback-matrix.md for tested retrieval patterns and failure modes. Do not require users to install another skill for Markdown proxy behavior; use the lightweight reader cascade directly. Do not block the task on Tavily or Firecrawl configuration.
Accept reader output only when it has substantial content and contains guideline signals such as abstract, manuscript, word, figure, reference, submission, or author guidelines. Reject security checks, cookie pages, access-denied pages, empty pages, and navigation-only fragments. If the page is only a hub with official subpage links, follow the relevant official links before falling back to third-party summaries.
If all automatic retrieval options fail (security check, cookie page, empty page, or navigation fragment), do not stop immediately. Try available web search for official mirrors, publisher help pages, or third-party guideline summaries. If those are still weak, ask the user to paste the guideline text.
Extract only requirements supported by the retrieved text:
| Area | Look For |
|---|---|
| Article type | manuscript type, article category, research article |
| Word limits | word, length, page, text limit |
| Abstract | abstract, structured, unstructured, word limit |
| Keywords | keyword count, keyword limit |
| Highlights | highlights, bullet count, character limit |
| Graphical abstract | graphical abstract, required, optional |
| References | reference count, style, format, limits |
| Figures/tables | figure, table, resolution, dpi, limit |
| Statements | data availability, CRediT, ethics, declaration |
| Formatting | line numbers, layout, language variant |
Parse only the fields needed for the selected scope.
.md and .txt: read directly..docx: use python-docx or an available document parser..pdf: use pymupdf or an available PDF parser.Record counts and locations that support the diagnosis: abstract words, keyword count, section headings, figure/table counts, reference count, statement presence, and section-level lengths.
Done when: word/keyword/reference counts, section headings, and required-statement presence are recorded for the selected scope.
Use this only for style alignment, language style, section-specific fit, or full submission readiness. Do not run full benchmarking during Quick Check unless the user explicitly asks for it or the Quick Check reveals a specific need.
Select exemplars from the same journal and similar topic. Avoid high-citation but off-topic papers.
abstract_inverted_index when present, then use a clean CrossRef abstract if available. Exclude no-abstract papers from abstract-length or language statistics and report the usable count.Summarize benchmarks with median and IQR. Do not rely on mean plus standard deviation for small, skewed samples.
For language-style checks, require enough full text to support the claim. If fewer than 3 OA full texts are usable, label the result as insufficient rather than making a style recommendation.
Done when: at least 3 same-journal exemplars are compared on the selected soft conventions (report low confidence whenever fewer than 5), or the shortfall is reported.
Only produce hard compliance findings when the requirement came from real guideline text.
Treat official guideline text and user-pasted official text as eligible for confirmed P0 findings. Treat third-party aggregators and search snippets as fallback evidence only: label them clearly, use them for tentative direction, and mark the item Unable to assess or "needs official verification" before submission.
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| P0 | Must fix: confirmed journal requirement is unmet |
| Pass | Confirmed compliant |
| Unable to assess | Requirement could not be verified from available evidence |
Use benchmarks for soft conventions, not hard rules.
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| P1 | Strong recommendation: draft is clearly outside the benchmark and evidence confidence is high |
| P2 | Optional optimization: mild deviation or low-confidence evidence |
| Pass | Draft is within the observed journal convention |
| Unable to assess | Benchmark data is too thin |
Lead with a concise readiness call, then show evidence. Use this structure:
## Readiness Call
[Ready / Needs targeted fixes / Not ready], based on [scope].
## Evidence Base
- Guidelines: [official / third-party / pasted / unavailable], source date if visible
- Exemplars: [not run for Quick Check / N papers, topic filter, data completeness]
- Draft: [file/path or pasted text], parsed fields
## P0 - Must Fix
1. [Issue]: current [value]; requirement [value/source] -> revision direction.
## P1 - Recommended
1. [Issue]: current [value]; journal convention [median/IQR, N] -> revision direction.
## P2 - Optional
1. [Issue]: reason and low-risk direction.
## Pass / Unable To Assess
- Pass: [...]
- Unable to assess: [...] because [...]
Do not include replacement sentences or rewritten paragraphs. If the user asks for actual wording after the diagnostic, state that this skill's job is complete and switch to an appropriate writing or polishing workflow.
page fields to estimate Elsevier article length; those fields may be article numbers. Use OA full-text PDF parsing for length signals when needed.references/guidelines-fallback-matrix.md: dated retrieval matrix and fallback examples for Author Guidelines.references/pitfalls-and-solutions.md: observed failure modes and practical corrections from test runs.