SCI Desk Reject Pre-check
Handling editor's pre-sub fatal flaw check
SCI Desk Reject Pre-check
Handling editor's pre-sub fatal flaw check
Showcase
Description
You spend months writing a manuscript, submit it—and three days later receive a rejection letter with no review comments. The editor-in-chief didn't even send it out for peer review; it was a desk rejection. 「SCI Desk Reject Pre-check」offers the initial screening perspective of a seasoned handling editor, helping you ensure quality before submission. What does it check? 📌 Journal Fit — Whether the topic aligns with the target journal's scope 🔍 Novelty and Contribution — Can the editor-in-chief identify your core contribution in 30 seconds? ⚗️ Methodology and Reproducibility — Design flaws and description gaps that trigger red flags 📊 Statistics and Quantitative Reporting — Issues in data presentation, significance, sample size, etc. 🛡️ Research Integrity and Ethics — Ethics approval, conflicts of interest, plagiarism check, AI disclosure, data availability 📝 Structure and Readability — Broken logic chains, weak abstracts, buried key information 🌐 English Language Risk — Whether language quality might trigger a language-based desk rejection All issues are categorized as 'Fatal / Major / Minor', each with actionable revision suggestions. Suitable for any SCI discipline: physics, chemistry, materials, engineering, life sciences, computer science, environment, geosciences, and more. Send your manuscript (or abstract + methods section) and start the check.
Related Skills
View all
Journal Fit Advisor
Rejected? It's not necessarily bad writing—it's not writing like this journal. 「Journal Fit Advisor」doesn't boast about the journal's ranking. It does one thing: break down real samples from your target journal, show you exactly what it prefers, and help you revise your paper paragraph by paragraph to fit better. 🎯 How it helps Submit a target journal → Extracts real preferences across six dimensions: topic, structure, theory, methodology, language, argumentation → Diagnoses where your paper falls short → Provides actionable rewrites (2-3 versions each for title, abstract, introduction, conclusion). ✨ Why trust it • Each preference is labeled with evidence level: official statement (A), sample inference (B), cautious guess (C). If it's a guess, it says so. • Cross-checked for uniqueness: every feature asks 'Do other similar journals do this too?' Only retains true differentiators. • No fabrication: no fake impact factors, no fake acceptance rates, no promises of acceptance. Lowers confidence if material is insufficient. • Plus a 'Journal Style Prompt Card' – copy and paste into any LLM to instantly write in that journal's style. 💬 How to use it ·“Analyze the topics and writing style of Journal XX over the last three years” ·“I want to submit to Journal XX – run a submission fit diagnosis for me” ·“Rewrite my abstract to sound more like Journal XX” ·“How long are titles in Journal XX typically?” (quick answer for short questions) 👥 Who it's for: graduate students, early-career researchers, authors wanting to self-check before submission. ⚠️ Boundaries: It provides observable style analysis, not the editor's true thoughts, nor a guarantee of acceptance. Cross-journal topic selection, pure title polishing, and chapter ghostwriting will be redirected to more appropriate tools.
Proposal Readiness Checker
Before you spend dozens of hours writing your thesis, take ten minutes to run a structured checkup. This skill does only one thing: It diagnoses, not writes. It tells you whether your topic can hold up, whether your materials are sufficient, what's missing, where to fill the gaps, and in what order. Then it gives you an actionable missing-material checklist and search queries. It will not write your introduction, literature review, methods, or discussion. Four steps: 1. Discipline diagnosis: Classify your work into 1A Humanities/Arts, 1B Social Sciences, 2A Science/Engineering, or 2B Agriculture/Medicine/Life Sciences, and load the corresponding regulatory red lines; 2B triggers a mandatory ethics review block. 2. Topic checkup: Examine the topic from three dimensions—momentum, shape, and wording—to judge whether the research unit can be operationalized, whether the research question can be answered, and whether the topic has been done to death. 3. Material checkup: Register your existing literature into an M1/M2… material library, verify each entry against the four elements (author/year/title/verifiable locator), and compute the true coverage rate. 4. Gap list and search queries: Specify how many papers of what type are missing and which piece of evidence is lacking, and provide search queries ready to paste into databases (including Boolean keyword combinations, time ranges, and screening criteria). When to use it (trigger phrases): "Help me check my proposal" "Can this topic work?" "Do I have enough literature?" "My proposal was sent back" "I want to confirm before starting to write" — for graduate students who have just set a direction but haven't started writing; for those whose proposal was rejected but don't know why; for those with a pile of literature but unsure if it's enough to begin; for those wanting to confirm whether the topic is worth the investment before committing fully. Deliverables: A Proposal Checkup Report document + a Five-Source Readiness Scorecard (each level has behavioral criteria, not vague scoring) + a prioritized list of missing materials + search queries + an archive code. The archive code is compatible with the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.0; after the checkup, paste it there to continue writing without re-stating your discipline, topic, or journal. What this skill explicitly does not do: It does not write the main text, generate reference lists, or fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, pages, or DOIs. Any literature found via online search is flagged with ⚠️ "needs verification" and must be verified by you before use. This skill does not promise any acceptance or passing outcome.
SCI Cover Letter Slow Teacher
This skill treats your journal submission cover letter as an advertisement for your paper. It first forces you to compress your research into a single core innovation point ("one word") and decide whether it follows the "science" route (material/structure/mechanism/method) or "engineering" route (performance/application). Then, it generates an 8-section English cover letter ready for submission: a four-sentence selling arc covering problem, innovation, data, and significance; journal matching information; and standard declarations. It uses the most concise, objective language (rejecting flashy words like "employs" or "shatter the ceiling") and fits within one page. Including a figure is mandatory: for performance types, it provides literature comparison scatter plots or tables; for mechanism/structure types, it actively diagnoses your existing figures (five-point check), gives a redraw list, and directly outputs an SVG draft. It can also critique an existing draft, pointing out common flaws such as listing multiple innovations, lacking data, copying the abstract, or having no journal targeting, and rewrite it. Compatible with universal agents like Claude Code and Codex. Trigger phrases include "help me write a cover letter", "submit to SCI", "is this letter good", and "which figure should I show the editor".
Information
- Version
- v2
- Last updated
- Runtime credits
- Usage-based
- Models
- Auto
