joc-writing-style — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited joc-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.
A JoC paper must be readable by a communication researcher outside its subfield, formatted to APA 7th edition, and disciplined to the 35-page main-document limit and 150-word abstract. This skill is about reaching the field and respecting the format — not about generating claims.
argument, the evidence, and why it matters to communication broadly. Don't make a generalist dig for the "so what."
computational-comm paper. Spell out acronyms.
without saying what they show and why it matters.
Zotero/BibTeX). References are part of the 35-page count.
document or supplemental materials; write self-citations in the third person; strip file metadata.
joc-literature-positioning).
JoC is the International Communication Association's flagship at Oxford University Press, so the desk editor reads the opening pages as a generalist and asks one question fast: does this advance communication theory in a way the whole field can use? The table below maps the most common prose-level failure signals to what a JoC handling editor infers and the venue-specific fix.
| Prose signal the editor sees | What it reads as at JoC | Field-wide fix |
|---|---|---|
| Platform/dataset named before a communication process | "platform write-up, not a contribution" | open on the messaging/exposure/effect process; platform is the empirical site |
| "Communication" appears only in the title | off-scope for ICA's generalist flagship | thread the communicative mechanism through intro, hypotheses, discussion |
| Abstract gives a coefficient but no theoretical move | finding without a contribution | state construct, mechanism advanced, and field-level stakes |
| Discussion lists one subfield's implications only | too narrow to clear the screen | add what another subfield can import |
A survey-experiment manuscript tests whether episodic vs. thematic news framing shifts blame attribution on immigration policy. The first abstract draft runs 186 words (over the 150 cap) and ends "results are discussed." Walking it through the rules above:
attribution by about 8 percentage points (illustrative) versus thematic framing.
advancing framing theory rather than re-demonstrating it.
Revised abstract lands at 142 words stating question, design, finding, and mechanism. The intro's contribution paragraph then carries cross-subfield reach (blame-attribution framing travels to health-risk and crisis messaging), so the paper reads for the field, not political-comm insiders.
【Contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads past the subfield?】jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤150)
【Length】article ≤ 35 pages (incl. refs/tables/figures/endnotes) / Forum 3,000–6,000 words?
【APA 7th + Word .docx + anonymized + third-person self-cites】[Y/N]
【Next】joc-open-science-and-transparency../../resources/official-source-map.md — page/abstract caps, APA 7th edition, Word format, anonymity~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.