Smr Submission

SMR Submission

Use this immediately before submitting through ScholarOne Manuscripts. Reverify every volatile item on the live SAGE author page first; portals and policies change.

Preflight

• Confirm submission goes through ScholarOne Manuscripts for SMR; create/log in to the Author Center and start a new submission (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Prepare a separate title page and an anonymized main document — SMR uses double-anonymized review, so the main file must carry no author-identifying content.
• Accepted file formats are Word, LaTeX, or PDF (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准).
• Citations and references in ASA style; dataset references in DataCite style.
• Abstract ≤150 words with no parenthetical citations.
• Include the data-and-code availability statement describing how data, code, and materials can be permanently accessed (repository/DOI, access conditions for restricted data).
• Add the generative-AI disclosure in the back matter if AI tools were used; if not, none is needed.
• Fees: there is no submission fee (verified 2026-06-22); open access is optional and paid via Sage Choice (a figure around US$3,900 + taxes surfaced on the SAGE author page — confirm the current charge on the live SAGE OA page before quoting).
• No hard word/length limit is stated for SMR; treat any circulating "~10,000 words" figure as descriptive, not a cap (需复核 on the live author page).
• If submitting a revision, respond to each reviewer comment by copying the comment verbatim and replying beneath it.
• Confirm the methods-paper completeness: contribution + derived properties + simulation + empirical illustration + released software.

Final-hour order

1. Venue facts: reopen resources/official-source-map.md and verify portal, review model, abstract limit, citation style, data policy, AI policy, and any fee against live SAGE pages.
2. Anonymization: scan the main document, exhibits, code, and PDF metadata for author identity; move all identity to the separate title page.
3. Conformance: abstract word count and parenthetical-citation check; ASA reference pass; file format; figure/table format.
4. Scientific gate: read the introduction only — it must state the method contribution, the problem it solves, and the evidence types without relying on later sections.
5. Reproducibility gate: confirm the availability statement and that the (anonymized) code/scripts reproduce the main exhibits.
6. Administrative gate: ScholarOne metadata (keywords, ORCID self-link), conflict-of-interest and funding declarations, preregistration statement if applicable.

Worked preflight: a missing-data estimator vignette

Illustrative run on a hypothetical new IPW-plus-imputation estimator paper:

1. Venue facts reopened: review model (double-anonymized), abstract rule, and availability policy reverified on live SAGE pages; one wording change noted in the source map.
2. Anonymization: the main PDF's metadata still carried the author name and the code README said "developed at [University]." Both stripped; identity moved to the title page.
3. Conformance: abstract is 168 words and contains "(Rubin 1987)" — cut to 147 words and rewritten as "Rubin (1987)." ASA reference pass fixes three hand-formatted entries.
4. Scientific gate: the introduction names the incumbent (complete-case / single MI), its failure regime (informative missingness), the contribution, and that proofs + simulation + an illustration on public survey data support it.
5. Reproducibility gate: the anonymized repository's master script reproduces the grid in a smoke-test run; availability statement points to the blinded archive, with the public DOI to be revealed at acceptance.
6. Administrative gate: ORCID self-linked, COI and funding declared.

Result after fixes: 147-word non-parenthetical abstract, fully anonymized files, availability statement present — submit.

ScholarOne slip list

• Author identity left in the main document, exhibits, code, or PDF metadata under double-anonymized review.
• Abstract over 150 words or containing parenthetical citations.
• References not in ASA style; dataset references not in DataCite style.
• Availability statement missing, vague ("available on request"), or deferred to acceptance.
• AI-use undisclosed where generative tools were used.
• Revision response that paraphrases rather than copies each reviewer comment verbatim before replying.
• ScholarOne metadata (keywords, ORCID, COI, funding) inconsistent with the manuscript.

Output format

[Submission readiness] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Anonymization] clean / identity found where
[Format checks] <abstract words/parenthetical cites/ASA/file format>
[Reproducibility] availability statement + code reproduce exhibits? yes/no
[Administrative] <ScholarOne metadata / ORCID / COI / funding / AI disclosure>
[Blocking fix] <one issue to resolve first>