Use when positioning a British Journal of Political Science (BJPS) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a contribution of wide, cross-subfield, international interest. BJPS readers span subfields and countries, so the paper must engage the literatures they expect and avoid the desk-screen trap of looking parochial. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.
SkillScore91Maintained
Automatic
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/16/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 4 of 22 without it.
Without skill18%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response uses the tag 【Debate】 in its output.
The response formats the output using the tag 【Gap】.
The response includes 【Next】 with bjps-theory-building.
and 19 more in the full report
17 fixed3 passed either way1 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+73 pp
Tokens
+19%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-29%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/16/2026v120 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 17 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 17
Prompt
We have a study on British electoral turnout in the 2019 general election for BJPS. What literature must we engage to clear the journal's generalist desk screen?
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response incorporates general institutional theory.
Passed
Passed
The response includes the tag 【Next】 referencing bjps-theory-building.
Missed
Passed
case-07 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/16/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md85 linessingle file
Literature Positioning (bjps-literature-positioning)
BJPS is read across comparative politics, IR, theory, behaviour, political economy, and methods, and
draws contributions from related disciplines (sociology, social psychology, economics, philosophy).
Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it is how a non-specialist editor and reviewer see that
the paper speaks to a live, general debate rather than a parochial one.
When to trigger
Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
A reviewer said you "missed obvious work" or "don't engage the broader debate"
Your country/subfield literature is solid but the paper doesn't connect to general theory
You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers
Writing a Comment that must engage the target article precisely
How BJPS wants the literature engaged
Engage the debate, not a pile of citations. Identify the live disagreement or open question the
paper speaks to, and cite the works that define it — including across subfields and countries.
Two audiences at once. Satisfy specialists (you know the frontier) and generalists (why it
matters). A single-country study should connect to the comparative theory it tests.
Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, mismeasured,
under-theorized, or untested, and why resolving it advances the field generally.
Position the contribution as a move in the debate. "Prior work argues X via mechanism M; we show
M fails / is conditional on C / is better explained by M′."
Pre-empt the obvious objection. BJPS reviewers are expert; acknowledge the strongest rival and
say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to bjps-research-design).
Cross-subfield / cross-national engagement (a distinctive BJPS demand)
If your paper is…
also engage…
a single-country empirical test
the general comparative theory the case speaks to
an IR / formal argument
the substantive empirical work the model bears on
a measurement contribution
the substantive literatures that will use the measure
a behaviour/opinion finding
the institutional or representational stake it informs
normative / theoretical
the empirical work the argument bears on, where applicable
Use when positioning an American Sociological Review (ASR) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a broad sociological contribution rather than a subfield note. Stakes the contribution in a debate that travels across sociology; it does not write the literature review.