cps-review-process
Use when anticipating how a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript will be evaluated — desk screening, anonymous peer review, decision categories, and how reviewers judge comparative work. Calibrates expectations; it does not write the submission or the rebuttal.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cps-review-process --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# Review Process (cps-review-process) Knowing how CPS evaluates a paper lets you preempt the objections before submitting. CPS uses **anonymous peer review** via **SAGE Track (ScholarOne)**; the manuscript is screened by an editor first, then sent to reviewers if it clears desk evaluation. Comparativists review for comparative leverage, travel, and methodological soundness on the paper's own terms. ## When to trigger - Before submission, to stress-test the paper against likely reviewer objections - Deciding whether the paper is ready or needs another design/analysis loop - Interpreting a decision letter and what each decision category means - Anticipating reviewer disagreement across subfields/methods ## The two screens 1. **Editorial / desk screen.** An editor judges fit and quality before review. Common desk-reject grounds: not comparative / no comparative leverage; out of CPS scope; better suited to a general or IR journal; insufficient contribution; serious methodological or ethical problems; not ready in English/format. Make the comparative contribution unmissable on page one to clear this screen. 2. **Anonymous peer review.** Reviewers (typically comparativists matched to sub
- When to trigger
- The two screens
- What CPS reviewers reward and punish
- Decision categories (verify current wording)
- Pre-submission stress test
- Checklist
- Anti-patterns
- Output format
- Supplementary resources
What does the cps-review-process skill do?
Use when anticipating how a Comparative Political Studies (CPS) manuscript will be evaluated — desk screening, anonymous peer review, decision categories, and how reviewers judge comparative work. Calibrates expectations; it does not write the submission or the rebuttal.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cps-review-process --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.