aerj-review-process — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited aerj-review-process (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Knowing how AERJ evaluates a paper shapes how you write and submit it. AERJ uses masked / double-anonymous review, screens for fit before sending out for review, and expects a contribution that reaches the integrated field-wide AERJ audience. Verify volatile specifics (timelines, reviewer counts, desk-reject rate) on the official page — they are not published as fixed numbers.
matters beyond one subfield.
significance, framing, methodological soundness, and adherence to scope/standards. Off-fit or clearly under-developed papers may be desk-rejected without external review.
(anonymous)** review — reviewers do not see author identities, and authors do not see reviewer identities. Reviewers judge significance, framework, design/method, analysis, and contribution.
after revision). R&R is the common path to publication for promising work.
AERJ's integrated structure means your paper is judged for field-wide education-research significance, not by method alone. This map shows the gates and what each one tests.
| Gate | Who decides | What it tests | Failure outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fit framing | Editorial office | Dominant education lens + field-wide significance | Weak fit slows or weakens review |
| Editorial screen | Handling editor | Broad significance, framing, soundness, scope | Desk reject (no external review) |
| Masked external review | Multiple masked reviewers | Significance, framework, design, analysis, contribution | Reject or R&R |
| Decision | Editor adjudicates | Convergence of reviewer judgments | Reject / R&R / accept-after-revision |
A paper on motivation in online learning draws a desk-screen concern: the significance reads as one-platform-specific. The authors had front-loaded a broad self-regulation framing, so the editor sends it out. Two masked reviewers split — one praises the multilevel analysis, one wants the qualitative interview strand integrated. The editor's letter makes the integration the decisive point. Reading that letter as the rubric (not weighting the two reviewers equally) is what turns the R&R into an acceptance. Desk-reject rates and reviewer counts are not published as fixed figures — confirm against the journal's current submission guidelines.
for your method.
authorship.
【AERJ fit】dominant lens + field-wide significance stated? [Y/N]
【Desk-screen risk】fit + significance + standards [low/med/high]
【Likely reviewer objections】top 2–3 to pre-empt
【Decision categories】reject / R&R / accept-after-revision
【Prep】what to strengthen before submitting
【Next】aerj-submission (or aerj-rebuttal on a decision)../../resources/official-source-map.md — masked review, integrated-journal history, and editorial team../../resources/external_tools.md — reporting-standards references reviewers apply~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.