Use to understand how the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) evaluates a manuscript — its distinctive student-run, double-blind review out of the University of Chicago Department of Sociology, the "preject" screen, reviewer assignment by a Manuscript Assignment Board, and decision categories. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
SkillScore86Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/15/2026
What it changes
Passed 19 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 22 without it.
Without skill50%
With skill86%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Does not output the preject review checklist.
Refers to ajs-rebuttal as a recommended next step.
Points to ajs-submission as the next workflow step.
and 15 more in the full report
10 fixed9 passed either way1 still failing2 broke
Pass-rate lift
+36 pp
Tokens
+53%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-26%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/15/2026v119 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 10 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 10
Prompt
An author uploaded a manuscript to AJS without an abstract, assuming reviewers will read the introduction directly. What screening outcome occurs?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Identifies a missing abstract as a trigger for prejection.
Passed
Passed
Recommends adding an abstract of approximately 150 words.
Missed
Passed
case-16 · 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.md93 linessingle file
Review Process (ajs-review-process)
AJS's review process is unusual and worth understanding before submitting. It is double-blind,
run out of the University of Chicago Department of Sociology, with graduate students doing
reviewer assignment and a "preject" screen for papers not in dialogue with current sociology.
Knowing this lets you pre-empt the failure modes. Verify volatile specifics on the live editorial
pages before submission.
When to trigger
Before submitting, to stress-test the manuscript against the AJS process
Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
Understanding why "in dialogue with current sociology" and theoretical ambition both matter
How AJS review works (distinctive features)
Double-blind. Identities are hidden from both authors and referees; prepare an anonymized
manuscript with a separate cover page (see ajs-submission). AJS will not knowingly use
reviewers in the author's network (current colleagues, coauthors, PhD cohort, etc.).
Three levels of editorship. The editorial board is the entire faculty of the UChicago
Department of Sociology; there is an editor, and a student tier (Associate Editors) supervising
Assistant Editors.
Student-run assignment. On first submission, a Manuscript Assignment Board (Assistant
Editors under graduate-student Associate Editors) reads a blinded manuscript to infer
substantive area and method, then finds reviewers who can speak to it — not restricted to cited
authors. This design deliberately reduces editor-driven reviewer bias.
The "preject." AJS declines without review papers that are not in dialogue with current
sociology — opinion pieces, current-events interpretations, or work that is not original
sociological research. Editorial associates or the Assignment Board make prejects, consulting the
editor when unsure.
Decisions. Reject, revise and resubmit, or (rarely on first round) accept. R&R is the normal
path for promising papers; expect substantial revision.
Use to understand how the American Political Science Review (APSR) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review, desk-rejection screening (remit / ethics / substance), the reject / accept / revise-and-resubmit decision categories, editor discretion, and the Registered Reports route. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.