asr-review-process — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited asr-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 ASR reviews helps you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. ASR uses masked (anonymous) review and draws reviewers from across sociology, so a paper must read credibly to experts who may not share its method.
no identifying wording (you may still cite your own work). Prepare accordingly (see asr-submission).
be declined without full external review. Make broad significance obvious early.
design rigor, and the evidence-to-claim link.
path to publication for promising papers; expect substantial revision.
findings must be disclosed.
| Reviewer asks | You answer with |
|---|---|
| Does this matter to sociology broadly? | explicit significance + portable theory |
| Is the method done rigorously for its kind? | design defense in asr-research-design |
| Are claims warranted by the evidence? | the evidence chain / uncertainty in asr-data-analysis |
| Is the contribution distinct from prior work? | positioning in asr-literature-positioning |
ASR's masked process has predictable choke points, and as the ASA flagship its editors decline at the screening gate more readily than specialty journals do.
| Stage | What stops a paper here | Pre-empt by |
|---|---|---|
| Editorial screening | weak fit / narrow significance | front-loading the disciplinary stakes |
| Masking integrity | identifying wording or title page | the asr-submission masking pass |
| Review — significance | "interesting, not for sociology broadly" | a portable mechanism, not a setting-bound finding |
| Review — rigor | method not credible for its kind | the design defense in asr-research-design |
| Review — evidence | claims outrun the data | uncertainty + negative cases shown candidly |
A demographic paper on rising "deaths of despair" by education is mock-reviewed before submission.
Screening risk: reads as a mortality-trend description → reframe around the social-structural
mechanism (eroding labor-market position by credential) so a generalist sees the stakes
Significance reviewer: "matters if the mechanism, not just the rate, is the point" → mechanism headline
Rigor reviewer: "age-period-cohort identification?" → state the restriction and a sensitivity check
Predicted outcome: R&R, not first-round accept (typical at ASR for a promising paper)Stress-testing against the panel before submission converts likely screening failures into a clean R&R path.
flagship screens hardest on broad significance.
defend the method in its own idiom.
one; the masked panel weights disciplinary payoff and craft together.
trust that carries a borderline paper.
labels — the broad shape (reject / R&R / rare accept) is stable.
【Significance】broad enough for a general sociology reviewer? [Y/N]
【Method rigor】defensible for its kind? [Y/N]
【Evidence→claim】warranted and candid? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】incl. cross-subfield? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】asr-submission (or asr-rebuttal if decided)../../resources/official-source-map.md — masked review, ethics, ASA submission norms~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.