New: 98,000+ skills indexed from GitHub repos with 100+ stars · every skill safety-checkedBrowse top skillsTop skills
Esc to closeBrowse all skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills
Submit a skillBrowse skills

Agent skill

Jedpsych Review Process

by brycewang-stanford in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review, editorial weighting of educational relevance, theory…

MITAuto-check passedResearch & Science

Install Jedpsych Review Process

skills CLI
$ npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jedpsych-review-process -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills jedpsych-review-process --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/Journal-of-Educational-Psychology-Skills/skills/jedpsych-review-process .claude/skills/jedpsych-review-process && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
jedpsych-review-process
GitHub stars
1.2k
Token cost
~1.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
565 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
2,387
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review, editorial weighting of educational relevance, theory…

  • Works in 5 steps: Masked review. Identities of authors and… → Editorial triage. The editor (and… → Expert external review assesses the… → …
  • You need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review
  • SKILL.md covers When to trigger, How review works, What gets a paper through and Desk-reject and decline patterns, plus 5 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Jedpsych Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when you need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review, editorial weighting of educational relevance, theory, design rigor (nesting/power), and transparency, desk-reject patterns, and the role of preregistration and JARS. Use when stress-testing a paper before submission or interpreting a decision letter. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Its SKILL.md is about 1.5k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Research & Science, covering Load testing and Peer review. The repository describes itself as: Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的… The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • You need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review
  • Editorial weighting of educational relevance
  • Design rigor (nesting/power)
  • Desk-reject patterns

Example prompts

  • “/jedpsych-review-process”

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Masked review. Identities of authors and reviewers are masked; keep author identity out of the
  2. Editorial triage. The editor (and associate/handling editors) assesses scope fit (educational
  3. Expert external review assesses the theoretical contribution, the design and analysis (especially
  4. Transparency and standards are weighed. The Transparency and Openness subsection, JARS compliance,
  5. Decisions. Reject, revise and resubmit (often major), or accept; expect substantive revision and

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 932eb23. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Jedpsych Review Process loads about 1.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 120 tokens; SKILL.md has 565 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~120
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~1.5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills at commit 932eb23, republished under its MIT licence (© brycewang-stanford). 565 words, ~1,540 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/jedpsych-review-process/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
jedpsych-review-process
description
Use when you need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review, editorial weighting of educational relevance, theory, design rigor (nesting/power), and transparency, desk-reject patterns, and the role of preregistration and JARS. Use when stress-testing a paper before submission or interpreting a decision letter. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

Review Process (jedpsych-review-process)

The Journal of Educational Psychology combines selectivity for educational importance with rigorous methodological scrutiny. Under masked review, both author and reviewer identities are hidden, and editors and expert reviewers weigh not only whether the finding is interesting but whether it is theoretically grounded, rigorously designed for its nested setting, and transparent. Knowing this lets you pre-empt the common rejection reasons.

When to trigger

  • Before submitting, to stress-test the manuscript
  • Deciding whether to preregister and how to present transparency
  • Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations

How review works

  1. Masked review. Identities of authors and reviewers are masked; keep author identity out of the manuscript, exhibits, and repository links (see jedpsych-submission).
  2. Editorial triage. The editor (and associate/handling editors) assesses scope fit (educational relevance + primary psychological research), theory, design rigor, and contribution; weak-fit or out-of-scope papers (e.g., single-instrument validation, pure evaluation) may be desk-rejected.
  3. Expert external review assesses the theoretical contribution, the design and analysis (especially whether nesting/power are handled), the strength of the claim relative to the evidence, measurement quality, and transparency/JARS reporting.
  4. Transparency and standards are weighed. The Transparency and Openness subsection, JARS compliance, and preregistration (encouraged) factor into the evaluation.
  5. Decisions. Reject, revise and resubmit (often major), or accept; expect substantive revision and frequent requests for added rigor (multilevel modeling, mechanism tests), disclosure, or analyses.

What gets a paper through

  • Make educational relevance and the theoretical mechanism explicit early.
  • Show the design is rigorous for its setting — nesting modeled, powered at the cluster level, validated measures, fidelity reported.
  • Report effect sizes with CIs and educational interpretation; test the mechanism, not just the total effect.
  • Disclose fully (JARS) and prepare the Transparency and Openness subsection; preregister where feasible.
Show full SKILL.md (279 more words)Show less

Desk-reject and decline patterns

The scope and rigor screens mean many manuscripts never reach full external review. Confirm current categories on the journal's submission guidelines, but recognize these shapes:

Pattern an editor seesLikely outcomePre-empt it by
Reliability/validity of one instrumentdesk reject (scope)reframe around a learning question or choose a measurement venue
Program evaluation with no psychological theorydesk reject / declineforeground the learning/motivation mechanism and a mechanism test
Classroom study analyzed as if students independentmajor revision or rejectrefit a multilevel model; power at the cluster level
Lab effect with no educational bridgescope concernargue the instructional/policy implication or go elsewhere
Stars-only stats, no effect sizes/CIsrigor flagestimation-first reporting with educational interpretation
Identity leaks under masked reviewreturned to authorscrub names, sites, grant numbers, first-person self-cites

Worked micro-example (illustrative triage)

Manuscript: preregistered cluster-randomized reading trial (48 classrooms),
            multilevel model, effect size + CI + mediation, TOP subsection.
Editor read: educational relevance (classroom reading), theory (strategy
            instruction → monitoring), rigor (cluster-powered, nesting modeled),
            transparency (data/code with DOIs).
Likely route: external review, probable major R&R for added robustness/
            measurement detail.
Counter-case: same effect, single-level OLS on clustered data, no mechanism,
            "data on request" → likely declined or heavy revision.

How reviewers weigh the evidence (calibration anchors)

  • A design that matches its nesting (randomized, powered, and analyzed at the cluster level) is the single strongest methodological signal at JEP; ignoring clustering is a routine reason for rejection.
  • A tested mechanism is what marks the paper as educational psychology rather than evaluation; reviewers reward a mediation/moderation result tied to theory.
  • Transparency is part of credibility: a candid restricted-data statement with an access path reads better than silent opacity; preregistration quality (specific, dated, followed) strengthens the paper.

Anti-patterns

  • A finding with no clear educational implication or theoretical mechanism
  • Clustered data analyzed as independent (the classic JEP methodological reject)
  • Stars-only reporting without effect sizes, CIs, or educational meaning
  • Weak or absent transparency / JARS reporting
  • Expecting acceptance without a rigor- and disclosure-heavy R&R

Output format

【Educational relevance】clear early? [Y/N]
【Theory + mechanism】grounded and tested? [Y/N]
【Design rigor】nesting modeled, cluster-powered, measures valid? [Y/N]
【Transparency + JARS】subsection + reporting standards strong? [Y/N]
【Masked】no identity leaks? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / major R&R / minor R&R / accept
【Next】jedpsych-submission (or jedpsych-rebuttal if decided)

Supplementary resources

© brycewang-stanford, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in Journal-of-Educational-Psychology-Skills/skills/jedpsych-review-process of brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 932eb23

Compare with similar skills

Jedpsych Review Process next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Jedpsych Review Process compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Jedpsych Review Process this skillbrycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.2k—~1.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Paper ReviewEvoScientist/EvoSkills478—~4.5kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Weakness Scannerflonat/flonat-research146—~1.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
LLM Counciltenfoldmarc/llm-council-skill8231 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassNone
Paper ReviewCamusGIT/EvoQuant1512 repos~2.6kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Review Paperpedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow1.7k—~7.3kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Paper Review

    EvoScientist/EvoSkills

    Guides self-review of YOUR OWN academic paper before submission with adversarial stress-testing.

    478 GitHub stars~4.5k tokensUpdated 10 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Weakness Scanner

    flonat/flonat-research

    Identify recurring weak arguments, unsupported assumptions, and vulnerable inference patterns across a literature corpus.

    146 GitHub stars~1.5k tokensUpdated 11 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • LLM Council

    tenfoldmarc/llm-council-skill

    Run any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict.

    823 GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~4.2k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Paper Review

    CamusGIT/EvoQuant

    Guides self-review of YOUR OWN academic paper before submission with adversarial stress-testing.

    151 GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~2.6k tokens
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Review Paper

    pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow

    Comprehensive manuscript review with three modes: single-pass (default), --adversarial critic-fixer loop, and --peer [journal] simulated peer-review pipeline (editor + 2 dispositioned referees +…

    1.7k GitHub stars~7.3k tokensUpdated 13 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

  • Grant Mock Reviewer

    aipoch/medical-research-skills

    Simulate structured grant peer review for biomedical proposals; use when stress-testing significance, innovation, approach, feasibility, and reviewer-facing weaknesses before submission.

    1.9k GitHub stars~3.5k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Research & ScienceAuto-check passed

More from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

All 2,387 skills in this repo

  • Aaag Data Analysis

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when running and reporting the analysis for an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial statistics and modeling, remote-sensing accuracy, or…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Literature Positioning

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when positioning an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript in the literature — engaging geographic scholarship across the relevant area and the…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Rebuttal

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when responding to an Annals of the American Association of Geographers decision letter (major/minor revision) — building a point-by-point response to the subject editor and…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Research Design

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when defending the research design of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial/quantitative analysis and GIScience, remote-sensing and…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Review Process

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how the Annals of the American Association of Geographers evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymous review routed through a subject editor by…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

  • Aaag Submission

    brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills

    A skill your agent uses when running the final pre-submission preflight for the Annals of the American Association of Geographers via ScholarOne Manuscripts — area/article-type selection…

    1.2k GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated 14 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Jedpsych Review Process

What does Jedpsych Review Process do?

A skill your agent uses when you need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review, editorial weighting of educational relevance, theory…. Jedpsych Review Process is an agent skill from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Use when you need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review, editorial weighting of educational relevance, theory, design rigor (nesting/power), and transparency, desk-reject patterns, and the role of preregistration and JARS.

When should I use Jedpsych Review Process?

Jedpsych Review Process fits situations like: you need to understand how the Journal of Educational Psychology evaluates a manuscript — masked peer review; editorial weighting of educational relevance; design rigor (nesting/power); desk-reject patterns.

How do I install Jedpsych Review Process in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jedpsych-review-process -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (Journal-of-Educational-Psychology-Skills/skills/jedpsych-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .claude/skills/jedpsych-review-process in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Jedpsych Review Process in Codex?

Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jedpsych-review-process -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (Journal-of-Educational-Psychology-Skills/skills/jedpsych-review-process in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) into .agents/skills/jedpsych-review-process in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Jedpsych Review Process in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jedpsych-review-process -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/jedpsych-review-process, .gemini/skills/jedpsych-review-process, .github/skills/jedpsych-review-process and .opencode/skills/jedpsych-review-process in your project.

What does Jedpsych Review Process need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Jedpsych Review Process is instructions for the agent only.

Does Jedpsych Review Process access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Jedpsych Review Process safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Jedpsych Review Process use?

Jedpsych Review Process is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Jedpsych Review Process use?

About 1.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 6.2k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Jedpsych Review Process?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Jedpsych Review Process: Paper Review (EvoScientist/EvoSkills, 478 stars), Weakness Scanner (flonat/flonat-research, 146 stars), LLM Council (tenfoldmarc/llm-council-skill, 823 stars) and Paper Review (CamusGIT/EvoQuant, 151 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Jedpsych Review Process?

brycewang-stanford (a GitHub user) maintains it in brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, which has 1,231 GitHub stars. The repository holds 2,387 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 27, 2026.

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.