Social Sciences In China Skills
Agent skill stack for submitting to 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — the comprehensive philosophy-and-social-science flagship sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, spanning literature, history, philosophy, economics, law, sociology and politics (NOT a single-discipline empirical economics journal; monthly, ISSN 1002-4921, CN 11-1211/C). Built around the journal's defining trait
Skills in this plugin
10- ▌ Ssc Style · brycewang-stanfordUse when polishing the language and rhetoric of a 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) manuscript — replacing policy-report tone and empty-significance phrases with scholarly argument, keeping a grand-but-restrained register, and ensuring paragraph-leading topic sentences. Use after the proposition and argument are settled.
- ▌ Ssc Evidence · brycewang-stanfordUse when handling empirical evidence in a 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) manuscript — choosing among quantitative, qualitative, and historical-comparative methods so the method serves the proposition, and translating any analysis (including regressions) into a thesis-level finding rather than a coefficient dump. Use when evidence feels disconnected from the argument or reads as method-flexing.
- ▌ Ssc Rebuttal · brycewang-stanfordUse when responding to external-review (外审) comments from 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — drafting a point-by-point response letter that defends or strengthens the original proposition, deepens theory and cross-disciplinary dialogue, and revises the manuscript before writing replies. Use after revising the text, not before.
- ▌ Ssc Workflow · brycewang-stanfordUse when deciding which ssc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from problematic framing through rebuttal for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China). Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.
- ▌ Ssc Submission · brycewang-stanfordUse when running the pre-submission preflight for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — checking footnote (页下注) conventions, abstract/keyword limits, bilingual title/abstract, the online submission system (sscp.portal.founderss.cn), anonymity, and document hygiene. Use right before submitting; verify every rule against the journal's current 投稿须知.
- ▌ Ssc Argumentation · brycewang-stanfordUse when tightening the logical argument and conceptual rigor of a 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) manuscript — making concept definitions explicit, ensuring each section advances the core proposition, and keeping theoretical / normative reasoning valid (not replaced by data tables). Applies to theoretical, normative, and historical-comparative papers as much as empirical ones.
- ▌ Ssc Abstract Keywords · brycewang-stanfordUse when writing or fixing the abstract and keywords for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — a 200–300 Chinese-character abstract that leads with the original proposition and contribution (not background), 3–5 keywords, and an aligned high-quality English abstract. Use at the polishing stage.
- ▌ Ssc Topic Problematic · brycewang-stanfordUse when framing or sharpening the research problem (问题意识 / problematic) for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — elevating a topic from a narrow empirical question to a 重大理论与现实问题, locating the live scholarly controversy, and tying it to China's development / 时代之问. Use before writing the introduction.
- ▌ Ssc Literature Dialogue · brycewang-stanfordUse when building or fixing the literature review for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — entering the theoretical lineage (classic authors and schools) rather than piling up recent empirical citations, and positioning the paper as a move within an ongoing scholarly conversation. Use when references are a variable-list instead of a theory dialogue.
- ▌ Ssc Theory Contribution · brycewang-stanfordUse when articulating the original theoretical contribution for 《中国社会科学》 (Social Sciences in China) — turning empirical findings into a concept / proposition / analytical framework, and positioning the work within China's autonomous knowledge system (自主知识体系) rather than verifying imported theory. Use when the contribution still reads as "we find that X affects Y".