Use to understand how an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript will be judged — masked/double-anonymous peer review, desk screening, integrated-journal fit, and decision categories. Sets expectations and informs strategy; it does not contact editors or reviewers.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 20 of 22 without it.
Without skill91%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Output recommends verifying alignment with AERA reporting standards prior to submission.
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 2
Prompt
I'm reviewing my manuscript draft on high school math interventions to ensure it aligns with AERJ's editorial review workflow. Can you break down the review process for me? Please structure your evaluation to include: an indicator for whether the field-wide lens and fit are clear, a desk-screen risk rating, the top objections reviewers are likely to raise, the standard decision outcomes, specific areas to strengthen prior to submission, and the next procedural steps.
case-02 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/15/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md87 linessingle file
Review Process (aerj-review-process)
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.
When to trigger
Setting expectations before or after submission
Anticipating likely reviewer objections to pre-empt in the draft
Understanding why a desk rejection happened, or what an R&R signals
Deciding how to frame the cover letter for integrated AERJ fit
How AERJ review works (verify current details)
Fit framing. The manuscript names its dominant education-research lens and why the contribution
matters beyond one subfield.
Editorial screening / desk decision. Editors first assess fit and quality — broad
significance, framing, methodological soundness, and adherence to scope/standards. Off-fit or
clearly under-developed papers may be desk-rejected without external review.
Masked external review. Suitable papers go to multiple expert reviewers under masked
(anonymous) review — reviewers do not see author identities, and authors do not see reviewer
identities. Reviewers judge significance, framework, design/method, analysis, and contribution.
Decision. Typical categories: reject, revise and resubmit (R&R), or accept (usually
after revision). R&R is the common path to publication for promising work.
What reviewers reward (write toward these)
A question of broad significance with a clear conceptual/theoretical framework
A design and analysis that meet the AERA reporting standards for the method
Honest scope conditions, limitations, and attention to equity/context
Self-contained, APA-formatted exhibits and clear, field-legible prose
Anti-patterns
Submitting a specialty-journal paper with no field-wide AERJ fit
A paper that only specialists would value (desk-reject risk on significance)
Method-standard mismatch (e.g., causal claims without a causal design)