newms-submission

name	newms-submission
description	Use for the final preflight before submitting a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript via Sage Track — word target, abstract, keywords, masking, SAGE Harvard referencing, ethics statement, and ORCID. Runs the checklist; it does not draft content.

Submission Preflight (newms-submission)

The last gate before upload. NM&S submits through Sage Track at mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms. This skill is a mechanical preflight: format, length, masking, and the ethics/data statements that an anonymous, ethics-attentive interdisciplinary journal expects. Verify every upload-field prompt on the live SAGE author-instructions page because details can change, especially across the 2026 editorial transition. As of 2026-06-22, Steve Jones is stepping down as Editor in June 2026 and the successor Editor(s) had not yet been publicly announced — treat all editor-specific guidance as live-check material and confirm the current masthead before submitting.

When to trigger

• The manuscript is written and analyses are final; you are about to upload
• Doing a final masking, length, and policy compliance sweep
• Assembling the file set Sage Track will ask for

Hard preflight checklist

• Word target 8,000 — all text including notes, references, tables, and charts. Submissions more than a few hundred words over the target are not considered. Report your count.
• Abstract 150 words, unstructured, stating purpose, approach, and findings.
• Keywords — at least 4, after the abstract.
• Masked for anonymous review — no author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or self-identifying phrasing in the manuscript; provide a separate title page. You may self-cite without naming yourself. (Confirm current masking format on the live page.)
• SAGE Harvard referencing — author-date in text, alphabetical reference list; consistent.
• Research-ethics statement — IRB/ethics approval, consent, anonymization, and (if used) scraping method/ToS handled per newms-transparency-and-data.
• Data-availability statement — what is/ isn't shared and why, consistent with consent/ToS.
• ORCID ID for the submitting author; coauthors should link ORCID IDs before acceptance.
• Exhibits anonymized — screenshots redacted, quotes reverse-search-resistant.
• Figures/tables legible, self-contained, and counted toward the word target.

File set (typical Sage Track; confirm at upload)

File	Contents
Anonymized manuscript	masked, with abstract, keywords, body, references, tables/figures
Title page (separate)	authors, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding, corresponding-author contact, word count
Figures (if separate)	high-resolution, captioned
Supplementary (if any)	clearly limited; not a dumping ground to evade the word target
Cover letter (if invited)	brief fit statement; not required to argue the whole case

Volatile specifics to verify

Confirm Sage Track upload fields, optional open-access fee details, and the current masthead on the live SAGE pages. See ../../resources/official-source-map.md for the 2026-06-20 official-source baseline.

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

Preflight on a digital-ethnography paper:
- Count: 8,240 words incl. refs/tables → over target; cut a redundant quote table + trim lit review.
- Masking: removed "in our prior fieldwork (Author 2023)" → "in prior fieldwork (Author 2023)".
- Ethics statement: IRB ref + paraphrased-quotes note added; ToS for scraped posts disclosed.
- Data statement: "Coding scheme + code available; identifiable data withheld per consent and platform ToS."
- Result: within target, masked, ethics + data statements present → ready for Sage Track.

Calibration anchors

• The word target is all-inclusive and firm. References and tables count; being a few hundred over can mean no review.
• Mask before you upload. One self-identifying phrase can compromise anonymous review.
• Ethics + data statements are not optional polish at an online-data journal — write them deliberately.

Anti-patterns

• Submitting over the word target because "tables shouldn't count" (they do)
• An unmasked manuscript or a forgotten self-identifying acknowledgment
• Mixed or non-SAGE-Harvard references
• No research-ethics or data-availability statement on a platform-data study
• Trusting remembered limits instead of the live page during the editorial transition

Output format

【Length】words incl. notes/refs/tables vs. 8,000 target [count]
【Abstract / keywords】150 words / ≥4 keywords? [Y/N]
【Masked】no identifying info; separate title page? [Y/N]
【Referencing】SAGE Harvard, consistent? [Y/N]
【Ethics + data statements】present and accurate? [Y/N]
【Live check】Sage Track fields, OA choices, and masthead checked? [Y/N]
【Next】newms-rebuttal (after a decision)

Supplementary resources

• templates/checklist.md — the copy-paste submission preflight checklist
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — portal, limits, masking, referencing facts