aerj-writing-style — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited aerj-writing-style (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.
An AERJ paper must read for the whole field of education research, not just specialists, and must comply with APA 7th edition. Write so a researcher from another subfield follows the argument, the stakes, and the contribution. Verify the current length and abstract limits on the official page.
tables, figures, notes, and references.
aerj-submission).it matters across the field, the approach, and the finding.
practice in plain language.
→ meaning. Use clear topic sentences.
— over-claiming draws reviewer fire.
formatting per APA 7th.
A field-wide readership means every section must be legible to a non-specialist while staying APA-7 disciplined. Use this as a section-by-section prose audit.
| Manuscript part | What reads well for AERJ's general audience | Reviewer-irritating tell |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction | Question, field-wide stake, approach, finding by page two | Pages of background before the contribution |
| Framework | Constructs defined in plain language, then operationalized | Theory jargon with no translation |
| Method | Design legible to outsiders; nesting and warrant stated | Acronyms assuming subfield fluency |
| Results | Effect sizes and intervals narrated, not just starred | "p < .05" prose with no practical meaning |
| Discussion | Scope conditions and equity/context stated honestly | Over-claiming beyond the design |
A draft abstract for an evaluation of a formative-assessment coaching program runs 168 words and opens with two sentences of literature. Trimmed to AERJ's 100–120-word target, it becomes: purpose (test whether coaching shifts instruction and learning), method (cluster-randomized across 48 schools, multilevel models), finding (an illustrative 0.16 SD gain, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], concentrated in high-need schools), significance (informs how districts target instructional support equitably). The filler background is gone; every clause earns its place. Confirm the exact word limit against the journal's current submission guidelines.
the plain-language stake.
resubmission.
【Section reviewed】intro / framework / methods / results / discussion / abstract
【Contribution front-loaded?】[Y/N]
【Reads for the field?】jargon translated, stakes plain [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (100–120)
【APA 7th compliant】citations + headings + stats [Y/N]
【Length】within limit (verify) [Y/N]
【Next】aerj-transparency-and-data-policy../../resources/external_tools.md — APA 7th reference managers and typesetting (apa7 / papaja)../../resources/official-source-map.md — APA style, abstract, and length requirements~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.