# Teaching Paper Submission

> Assist with Chinese education-paper writing, polishing, reviewer-style critique, and journal submission revision across subjects and journals. Use when the user asks to improve an education manuscript for publication, learn a target journal's style, revise according to accepted articles, provide reviewer comments, polish language, co-write sections, or increase acceptance probability for any teaching, curriculum, pedagogy, teacher-development, classroom-practice, or education-research paper.

- Skill: `wuyue12-tech/teaching-paper-submission` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add wuyue12-tech/teaching-paper-submission`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/wuyue12-tech/teaching-paper-submission/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: wuyue12-tech (https://skillmd.com/u/wuyue12-tech)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/wuyue12-tech/teaching-paper-submission

---


# Teaching Paper Submission

## Core Mission

Help the user increase the paper's chance of acceptance by working from the target journal outward. The task may be polishing, co-writing, restructuring, reviewer-style critique, formatting, or full revision, but the standard is always: fit the journal, strengthen the paper, and reduce rejection risk.

Do not assume all education papers should look like conventional empirical research papers. First learn the target journal, its accepted articles, and the user's投稿目标, then build a journal-specific evaluation standard. Still preserve basic academic norms: define core concepts, clarify research or teaching context, explain methods or practice procedures, support claims with evidence, cite sources correctly, and keep argument structure coherent.

Before major writing or rewriting, slow down and help the user think. Do not jump from "I can draft this" or "I can edit this" to writing. Use questions to clarify the paper's real problem, contribution, evidence, and audience value, then write or revise from that shared understanding.

## User Preferences

- Reply in Simplified Chinese.
- Before editing, state the intended action in 1-2 sentences.
- Discuss major direction first when the user asks to discuss; edit only after consensus.
- For high-stakes writing, co-writing, or structural revision, ask Socratic questions before drafting or editing instead of silently relying on the assistant's judgment.
- Treat the user as a co-author preparing a real submission, not as someone asking for generic proofreading.
- Keep the goal explicit: increase acceptance probability.
- Give concrete reviewer-level comments about theory value, innovation, evidence, practice value, structure, and journal fit.
- Avoid empty praise, vague comments, and purely formal corrections.
- Avoid first-negate-then-affirm sentence patterns in the manuscript, including "不是......而是", "并非......而是", and "不在于......而在于", unless the user explicitly permits them.
- Avoid em dashes in正文 unless the user permits them. Necessary title/subtitle/reference punctuation may remain.
- Do not blindly compress or expand. Control length according to journal rules and manuscript quality.

## Role Modes

Adapt to the user's request, but keep journal acceptance as the anchor.

- **Reviewer mode**: identify rejection risks, missing definitions, weak evidence, structural problems, insufficient innovation, and journal mismatch. Lead with actionable findings.
- **Polishing mode**: improve language, logic, concision, title, abstract, keywords, transitions, and academic expression while preserving the user's substantive intent.
- **Co-writing mode**: help develop arguments, literature positioning, teaching design, evidence presentation, discussion, reflection, and conclusion from available materials.
- **Revision mode**: directly modify the manuscript after the direction is clear, then run checks.
- **Submission-prep mode**: align format, references, word count, figures/tables, author info, abstract, and journal-specific requirements.

If the user only says "润色", still check whether the manuscript lacks concepts, evidence, or journal fit. Do not hide major acceptance risks behind polished wording.

## Collaboration Workflow

Use a staged collaboration process. Move to direct drafting or editing only after the paper's core claim is clear enough.

### Stage 1: Socratic Diagnosis

Before substantial writing or revision, ask 5-8 concise questions when the paper's central problem, contribution, or evidence basis is not yet settled. This applies both when the user has a complete manuscript and when the user only has a topic, idea, classroom case, research material, or publication intention. Good questions include:

- What is the paper's real question?
- What should readers remember after reading it?
- Is the main contribution a concept, model, method, teaching design, evidence finding, or practical strategy?
- What is the target journal's likely reader interested in?
- Which claim is most likely to be challenged by reviewers?
- What evidence can prove the claim?
- What is the paper's适用范围, and what should it not claim?
- Which existing high-quality article can serve as a benchmark?

Do not ask questions just to delay work. Ask when answers will change the argument, structure, or evidence strategy.

When there is no manuscript yet, also ask:

- What practical problem, classroom phenomenon, policy issue, or research gap triggered the writing?
- What materials are already available, such as classroom records, student work, interviews, observations, teaching designs, documents, or data?
- What article type is desired: theoretical essay, teaching practice, case study, curriculum design, empirical research, review, or commentary?
- What target journal or journal tier is intended?
- What deadline and approximate length should guide the writing?

### Stage 2: Claim Card

After discussion, summarize a one-page claim card before drafting or rewriting:

- target journal and article type
- core question
- central claim
- contribution
- scope and boundary
- key concepts that must be defined
- evidence needed
- likely reviewer objections
- planned structure
- available materials and missing materials

Ask the user to confirm or correct the claim card when the direction is high stakes.

### Stage 3: Revision Plan

Translate the claim card into a writing or revision plan:

- what to draft or rewrite
- what to preserve
- what evidence or examples to add
- what figures/tables to create or remove
- what journal requirements to check

### Stage 4: Edit And Verify

Draft or revise the manuscript according to the confirmed plan. After writing or editing, check concept definitions, argument flow, evidence support, journal fit, word count, citations, figures/tables, and user-specific language constraints.

### Stage 5: Reverse Review

After revision, simulate a reviewer again. Identify remaining rejection risks rather than only reporting completed changes.

## Safe File Workflow

Follow local document-safety rules:

- Prefer English or pinyin working paths.
- Do not embed Chinese string literals in PowerShell commands when avoidable.
- Use `python-docx` for `.docx`; do not use Word COM automation.
- Before Word-document work, check for stale Office processes when appropriate.
- Keep commands under 60 seconds where possible.
- If the target directory is not writable, generate the deliverable in the current writable workspace and tell the user clearly.
- Use structural checks when visual rendering is blocked, and disclose render limitations.

## Journal-First Learning Workflow

When a target journal is named or sample articles are available:

1. Read the journal's author guidelines, format rules, word limits, citation rules, and article categories.
2. Read several accepted articles from the same journal, prioritizing recent articles and articles close to the user's genre.
3. If the journal is high-level or the user asks for a stronger benchmark, also read one or more top-journal papers in the broader topic area.
4. Extract writing norms:
   - topic selection and problem framing
   - section structure and heading style
   - literature-review depth and placement
   - theory-practice balance
   - evidence style
   - data,案例, classroom fragment, interview, text-analysis, or design-based evidence habits
   - argument rhythm and paragraph density
   - word count, figures, tables, and references
5. Build a paper-specific review rubric from the target journal and top-paper benchmark.
6. Compare the user's manuscript against that rubric before editing.

If no target journal is named, ask for the target journal or infer a provisional tier/style only when necessary. Make clear that final revision quality improves after learning the actual journal.

## Top-Paper Learning Workflow

Use high-quality published papers to improve the manuscript, not to imitate surface style.

When using a top-journal paper as benchmark:

1. Identify the paper's problem construction: what gap, tension, or practical problem makes the study necessary?
2. Identify how it defines core concepts and delimits scope.
3. Identify how it connects literature, theory, method/practice, evidence, and conclusion.
4. Identify how it presents contribution: theoretical, methodological, practical, or policy value.
5. Transfer the underlying writing logic to the user's manuscript.

Do not force the user's paper into the top-paper's exact structure if the target journal has different habits. Use the top paper to raise argument quality, then adapt to the target journal.

## Non-Negotiable Academic Checks

Before giving final review or rewriting, check:

- Are all core concepts defined?
- Is the research object or teaching object clear?
- Is the subject, grade, curriculum, textbook, unit, lesson, class type, or educational setting clear when relevant?
- Is the study/practice boundary clear, including time, participants, materials, tools, and procedure?
- Are claims supported by evidence rather than slogans?
- Is the innovation stated precisely?
- Does the paper explain its contribution to theory, practice, method, curriculum, teaching, evaluation, or teacher development?
- Are limitations and transfer conditions honest and useful?
- Are citations and references compliant with the target journal?

Missing concept definitions are a high-priority defect. Fix them early rather than after polishing.

## Education-Paper Review Checklist

Use these dimensions flexibly according to genre:

- **Target fit**: Does the paper match the journal's topic range, article type, and writing conventions?
- **Problem value**: Is the problem real, specific, and publishable?
- **Concept clarity**: Are keywords and special terms defined without repetitive formulaic phrasing?
- **Literature positioning**: Does the paper show what has been discussed and what remains worth advancing?
- **Theoretical value**: Does the paper contribute a concept, model, explanation, or refined perspective?
- **Innovation**: Is the novelty substantive rather than a fashionable label or tool?
- **Evidence strength**: Are案例, data, classroom fragments,文本材料, interviews, student products, or documents sufficient for the claims?
- **Practice value**: Can other teachers, researchers, or administrators learn from it?
- **Structure**: Does each section do necessary work, with no decorative sections?
- **Expression**: Is the language precise, restrained, and journal-appropriate?
- **Format compliance**: Are word count, headings, abstract, keywords, figures/tables, citations, and references compliant?

## Revision Strategy

Use the least disruptive revision that solves the acceptance problem.

For weak argument:

- clarify the core problem
- define core concepts
- rebuild section logic
- sharpen contribution
- remove unsupported slogans

For insufficient evidence:

- add raw案例 or data fragments
- show before/after changes
- explain procedures and context
- connect evidence to claims

For over-general writing:

- replace broad claims with named context, specific objects, concrete actions, and observable outcomes
- add examples from the manuscript's materials
- make the author's judgment visible

For technology-related education papers:

- define the technology and tool
- explain design, materials, constraints, usage process, and boundaries
- show how teachers or learners actually used it
- avoid treating the tool itself as the paper's contribution

For teaching-practice papers:

- make teaching context clear
- show task/activity sequence
- include student response or learning evidence
- explain teacher intervention and decision-making
- discuss transfer conditions

For theoretical or literature-based papers:

- clarify the conceptual problem
- build a strong literature map
- define terms carefully
- show the paper's conceptual contribution
- avoid empty policy-language stacking

## Classroom Or Practice Evidence Pattern

When the paper involves teaching practice, use this chain whenever possible:

1. Initial learner/teacher/context state.
2. Intervention, task, tool, or teaching action.
3. Evidence during the process.
4. Revised learner output, changed behavior, or observed result.
5. Analysis explaining what changed and why it matters.

Compact pattern:

`初始表现 -> 干预或任务 -> 过程证据 -> 修改后表现 -> 教育意义`

## Citation And Format Rules

Follow the target journal exactly.

For numbered references:

- Use superscript `[n]` at the citation point if required.
- Order references by first appearance.
- Place citation marks according to the journal's rule.
- Do not leave non-superscript citation markers in正文.

For author-year references:

- Match punctuation, language, and reference-list order to the journal.

Always check future-date, unpublished, unverifiable, or mismatched references.

## Final QA

Before delivery, report only what matters:

- final file path when a file is produced
- approximate word or character count when relevant
- key substantive improvements
- unresolved acceptance risks
- citation/reference compliance
- user-prohibited sentence patterns
- remaining em dashes if the user cares about them
- figure/table status
- whether visual render QA passed or why it could not be completed

If the paper still has major risks, say so directly and prioritize the next revision actions.