paper1

中文论文一条龙工作流：以 CNKI（中国知网）为核心文献源，以 PaperSpine V4 单一入口完成配置、文献实采、引用库、动机与贡献确认、逐段蓝图、成稿、审计和 Word/LaTeX 交付。Use this skill whenever the user wants to write, rewrite, or refine a Chinese academic paper (期刊/会议/课程论文/报告) with literature from 知网/CNKI — including 选题打磨、查文献、建引用库、下载 PDF、写初稿、改稿、投稿准备. Trigger on phrases like 写论文、中文论文、知网文献、CSSCI、北大核心、核心期刊、文献综述、引用库、查重前定稿, even if the user does not name CNKI or PaperSpine explicitly. This is the unified entry point for paper-spine and the cnki-* operation skills.

检索国外/英文学术文献（OpenAlex API 为主，含引文滚雪球；Semantic Scholar 补充，Google Scholar 浏览器兜底）。Use whenever the user needs foreign-language or international literature — 外文文献、英文文献、国外研究、SSCI、谷歌学术、Google Scholar、Web of Science 替代、文献综述需要覆盖国外、citation bank 加外文、滚雪球、引文追踪、citation chasing — including searching by topic, ranking by citations, filtering by year, pulling abstracts, and chasing backward/forward citations from a seed paper. Works without captcha via OpenAlex; falls back to Scholar in the controlled Chrome only for grey literature the API misses.

选刊与按刊适配：判断一篇论文稿件适合投哪个期刊（中文/英文、人文社科），或把稿件按目标期刊的定位、体例、审稿偏好做适配改写。Use when the user asks 这篇论文投哪个期刊、适合投什么刊、选刊、期刊匹配、改投哪里、按某期刊要求写/改论文、期刊投稿要求、journal fit / where to submit / venue selection / tailor manuscript to a journal. 覆盖 229 个期刊 pack（102 中文社科 + 100 英文经管 + 27 个人文社科单刊深度包，含 APSR/AJPS/IO/World Politics、《中国社会科学》《社会学研究》《中国行政管理》）。中文论文全流程写作仍走 cnki-paper；本技能负责"投哪"与"按刊改"。

Use when planning or reporting the analysis for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — multilevel/HLM and growth models, IRT/measurement, quasi-experimental estimation, or qualitative coding and thematic analysis. Analysis must meet the AERA reporting standards (warrant + transparency). Strengthens analysis reporting; it does not run models for you.

Use when positioning an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript in the literature. AERJ readers span the whole field, so the paper must engage the literatures a general education-research audience expects and speak past its own subfield. Builds the positioning argument; it does not write the literature review for you.

Use when writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when defending the research design of an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — quantitative (multilevel, IRT, quasi-experimental, RCT), qualitative (case study, ethnography, interview), or mixed methods. AERJ judges each tradition on its own terms against the AERA reporting standards. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript will be judged — masked/double-anonymous peer review, desk screening, integrated-journal fit, and decision categories. Sets expectations and informs strategy; it does not contact editors or reviewers.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) via ScholarOne Manuscripts — masked preparation, length and abstract limits, APA 7th-edition formatting, ORCID, and a separate title page. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. Exhibits must be self-contained, accessible, and formatted to APA 7th edition, and they must be anonymized for masked review. Improves exhibits; it does not generate data.

Use when building the conceptual or theoretical framework for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ expects a clear framework that frames the question, guides the design and analysis, and elevates a result into a contribution to understanding. Strengthens the framework; it does not invent theory.

Use when deciding whether a topic fits the American Educational Research Journal (AERJ), now an integrated field-wide journal, and whether the manuscript's dominant education-research lens is clear. AERJ rewards broad significance to education research, not subfield-only description. Tests fit; it does not generate research questions.

Use when preparing the transparency, reporting, and data-availability materials for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ expects work to meet the AERA Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research (quantitative + qualitative) and the AERA Code of Ethics expectations on making data available. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

Use as the entry point for any American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. Routes to the right AERJ sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and whether the manuscript's field-wide education-research fit is clear. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript. AERJ is read across the whole field, follows APA 7th-edition style, and expects a 100–120-word abstract within a maximum 50-page manuscript. Improves clarity and compliance; it does not ghostwrite the paper.

Use when turning archival findings into a sustained historical argument for The American Historical Review (AHR). The AHR rewards a clear thesis that earns its claims from evidence while remaining alert to contingency and complexity. Builds the argument and its stakes; it does not gather new sources or fabricate evidence.

Use when formatting citations and notes for an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript. The AHR follows the Chicago Manual of Style with all references in footnotes/endnotes — no bibliography or works-cited list and no in-text parenthetical citation. Gets the note apparatus right; it does not write the prose or argument.

Use when positioning an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript within the historiography so it reads as an intervention, not a report. AHR readers are historians across fields who expect you to engage the relevant scholarship and say precisely what you change. Stakes the contribution against prior work; it does not write the literature survey.

Use when choosing and defending an interpretive approach for an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript — social, cultural, intellectual, political, economic, transnational, global, microhistory, or the history of knowledge. The AHR welcomes many methods judged on their own terms. Sharpens interpretation and scale; it does not impose a single template.

Use to understand how The American Historical Review (AHR) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind anonymous review by at least six scholars, a six-to-eight-month timeline, an 8-10% acceptance rate, and the large commissioned book/media review section. Sets expectations and shapes the article to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when responding to an American Historical Review (AHR) decision — a revise-and-resubmit or rejection. AHR articles are read by at least six demanding specialists, so the response must address expert reports while protecting the argument and keeping the manuscript anonymized. Structures the revision and response letter; it does not fabricate new evidence.

Use when handling primary sources and archives for an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript — distinguishing primary from secondary, criticizing sources, citing manuscripts and collections in Chicago notes, and clearing image permissions. The AHR judges history on the quality and criticism of its evidence. Strengthens source work; it does not invent archival material.

Use when organizing an American Historical Review (AHR) article so narrative and analysis work together within the roughly 8,000-word target (notes excluded). The AHR prizes articles that tell a story and argue a point at once. Shapes structure and flow; it does not generate the underlying argument or evidence.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for The American Historical Review (AHR) via ScholarOne — masked-author preparation, the roughly 8,000-word target, Chicago notes, manuscript formatting, image alt-text and permissions, and the exclusivity declaration. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when deciding whether a history project fits The American Historical Review (AHR) and how to frame its significance. The AHR is the discipline's generalist flagship across all periods and places, so the test is significance to historians beyond your subfield, not local novelty alone. Helps frame the question; it does not do the archival research.

Use as the entry point for any American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript. Routes to the right AHR sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle of a history article — from significance and historiography through archives, interpretation, Chicago-style prose, review, and revision. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing the prose of an American Historical Review (AHR) manuscript so it reads with clarity and authority for historians across all fields. The AHR rewards lucid, narrative-aware scholarly prose, not jargon. Tightens voice and readability; it does not invent content or argument.

Use when executing and reporting the analysis for an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. AJPS will have a third-party verifier re-run your exact code against the numerical results in the main text before publication, so analyze reproducibly from the first line. Guides analysis and reporting norms; it does not fabricate results.

Use when positioning an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript against the literature. AJPS is double-blind, so positioning must engage the relevant debates while keeping the manuscript fully anonymized (third-person self-citation, no first-person "we showed"). Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Use when writing the response to an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) revise-and-resubmit. The revised manuscript stays double-blind, the response memorandum is submitted anonymized, and any new analyses must keep the replication package re-runnable for the third-party verifier at acceptance. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.

Use when building the replication package for an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. AJPS is famous for MANDATORY third-party PRE-publication verification — an independent verifier re-runs your deposited code and confirms it reproduces the numerical results in the main text before the article is published, with materials deposited to the AJPS Dataverse on Harvard Dataverse. Prepares the package; it does not waive requirements.

Use when defending the research design of an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript — causal identification for observational work, experimental and survey-experimental design, formal-empirical linkage, or case-based inference. AJPS reviewers are quantitatively demanding, so identification must license the claim being made. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

Use to understand how the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind peer review, desk screening, decision categories, the methodology-only Research Note and Correspondence routes, and the third-party verification that follows acceptance. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) via Editorial Manager — submission-type selection, full anonymizing for double-blind review, word/abstract caps, APSA-or-Chicago formatting, the 25-page Supporting Information limit, and human-subjects/IRB documentation. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building tables and figures for an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. AJPS counts table/figure headers and notes toward the word limit, and the deposited code must regenerate every exhibit exactly for third-party verification. Designs self-contained, reproducible exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

Use when building the theoretical argument of an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript — whether empirical with explicit mechanisms, formal/game-theoretic, or measurement-driven. AJPS rewards testable theory tightly linked to the empirical strategy, with hypotheses stated before the results. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses.

Use when deciding whether a political-science project fits the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) and which submission type (Article, Research Note, Correspondence) to target. AJPS is a generalist but quantitatively leaning venue that rewards a sharp, well-identified question with a generalizable payoff. Helps frame the question and pick the type; it does not collect data.

Use as the entry point for any American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript. Routes to the right AJPS sub-skill based on lifecycle stage and which submission type (Article, Research Note, Correspondence) fits, and reminds you that AJPS re-runs your code via a third-party verifier before publishing. It dispatches; it does not draft content.

Use when drafting or polishing an American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) manuscript so it fits the word caps (Articles <= 10,000 words; Research Notes and Correspondence <= 4,000; abstract <= 150 words), follows the APSA Style Manual or Chicago 18th edition, and stays fully anonymized for double-blind review. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

Use when planning or auditing the analysis of an American Journal of Sociology (AJS) manuscript so the evidence credibly supports the theoretical claim. Covers analysis norms, uncertainty, robustness, and triangulation across quantitative, comparative-historical, and ethnographic work. Improves the analysis chain; it does not fabricate results.