psyclaw 0.27.23 → 0.28.1

package/vendor/ars/academic-paper-reviewer/references/top_journals_by_field.md

@@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
+# Top Journals by Field — Key Academic Discipline Journal Directory
+
+This document is used by `field_analyst_agent` and `eic_agent` as a reference for calibrating the Journal-Fit Reviewer identity and assessing journal fit.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Education
+
+### Higher Education
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Studies in Higher Education* | Taylor & Francis | 5-7 | Emphasizes theoretical depth, international comparison, policy implications |
+| *Higher Education* | Springer | 4-6 | Accepts diverse methodologies, values contextual description |
+| *Research in Higher Education* | Springer | 3-5 | Prefers quantitative research, large datasets |
+| *Journal of Higher Education* | Taylor & Francis | 3-5 | Primarily U.S. context, values empirical research |
+| *Quality in Higher Education* | Taylor & Francis | 2-4 | Quality assurance topics, HEEACT/ENQA related |
+| *Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education* | Taylor & Francis | 4-6 | Assessment and evaluation topics |
+| *Higher Education Research & Development* | Taylor & Francis | 3-5 | Teaching and learning research |
+| *European Journal of Higher Education* | Taylor & Francis | 2-3 | European perspective, Bologna Process |
+
+### General Education
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Review of Educational Research* | SAGE | 10-12 | Accepts only review articles, highest standards |
+| *Educational Researcher* | SAGE | 6-9 | Interdisciplinary education research, policy-relevant |
+| *American Educational Research Journal* | SAGE | 5-7 | Diverse methodologies, U.S. context |
+| *British Educational Research Journal* | Wiley | 3-5 | U.K. context, critical perspectives |
+| *Comparative Education Review* | U Chicago Press | 2-4 | Comparative education, cross-national research |
+
+### Educational Technology
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Computers & Education* | Elsevier | 10-13 | Primarily empirical research, large samples |
+| *The Internet and Higher Education* | Elsevier | 7-10 | Online learning, blended instruction |
+| *British Journal of Educational Technology* | Wiley | 5-7 | Balances theory and practice |
+| *Educational Technology Research & Development* | Springer | 4-6 | Instructional design, learning sciences |
+
+---
+
+## 2. Computer Science / AI
+
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Nature Machine Intelligence* | Springer Nature | 20-25 | High-impact AI research, interdisciplinary |
+| *Artificial Intelligence* | Elsevier | 8-12 | Foundational AI theory and methods |
+| *Journal of Machine Learning Research* | JMLR | 4-7 | Machine learning theory and algorithms |
+| *IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence* | IEEE | 20-25 | Computer vision, pattern recognition |
+| *ACM Computing Surveys* | ACM | 15-18 | High-quality survey articles |
+| *Computers in Human Behavior* | Elsevier | 8-10 | Human-computer interaction, user behavior |
+
+---
+
+## 3. Business & Management
+
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Academy of Management Review* | AOM | 10-13 | Pure theory, conceptual innovation |
+| *Academy of Management Journal* | AOM | 9-11 | Empirical research, large samples |
+| *Strategic Management Journal* | Wiley | 8-10 | Strategic management, competitive advantage |
+| *Administrative Science Quarterly* | SAGE | 9-12 | Organizational theory, boutique papers |
+| *Journal of Management* | SAGE | 10-13 | General management journal |
+| *Organization Science* | INFORMS | 5-7 | Organizational behavior, decision science |
+| *Management Science* | INFORMS | 5-7 | Quantitative management, decision models |
+
+---
+
+## 4. Social Sciences
+
+### Sociology
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *American Sociological Review* | SAGE | 6-8 | Top U.S. sociology journal |
+| *American Journal of Sociology* | U Chicago Press | 4-6 | Balances theory and empirical work |
+| *Annual Review of Sociology* | Annual Reviews | 7-10 | High-quality reviews |
+| *British Journal of Sociology* | Wiley | 3-5 | Critical theory, European perspectives |
+
+### Political Science / Public Policy
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *American Political Science Review* | Cambridge | 5-7 | Top political science journal |
+| *Journal of Policy Analysis and Management* | Wiley | 3-5 | Policy analysis, causal inference |
+| *Public Administration Review* | Wiley | 5-8 | Public administration, governance |
+| *Policy Sciences* | Springer | 3-5 | Policy process theory |
+| *Journal of Public Policy* | Cambridge | 3-5 | Comparative public policy |
+
+### Psychology
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Psychological Bulletin* | APA | 18-22 | High-quality meta-analyses |
+| *American Psychologist* | APA | 14-17 | Interdisciplinary psychology |
+| *Journal of Applied Psychology* | APA | 6-8 | Applied psychology research |
+| *Educational Psychology Review* | Springer | 8-11 | Educational psychology reviews |
+
+---
+
+## 5. Engineering
+
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Nature Engineering* | Springer Nature | — | Interdisciplinary engineering breakthroughs |
+| *Journal of Engineering Education* | ASEE/Wiley | 3-5 | Engineering education research |
+| *IEEE Transactions* (various branches) | IEEE | 5-15 | Technical contributions, experimental validation |
+| *International Journal of Engineering Education* | TEMPUS | 1-3 | International engineering education journal |
+| *European Journal of Engineering Education* | Taylor & Francis | 2-4 | European engineering education |
+
+---
+
+## 6. Medicine & Health Sciences
+
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *The Lancet* | Elsevier | 90-170 | Highest standards, global health |
+| *BMJ (British Medical Journal)* | BMJ | 90-100 | Clinical research, public health policy |
+| *Medical Education* | Wiley | 5-7 | Medical education research |
+| *Academic Medicine* | AAMC | 6-8 | Medical education, academic medicine |
+| *BMC Medical Education* | Springer | 3-4 | Open access, medical education |
+| *Advances in Health Sciences Education* | Springer | 3-5 | Health sciences education theory |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Information Systems (Senior Scholars' Basket of 11)
+
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *MIS Quarterly* | MIS Quarterly | 7-9 | Theory-driven empirical research, design science; rigorous quantitative and qualitative methods |
+| *Information Systems Research* | INFORMS | 5-7 | Analytical, behavioral, and design science; strong methodological standards |
+| *Journal of Management Information Systems* | Taylor & Francis | 5-7 | Management-oriented IS research, theory and practice |
+| *Journal of the Association for Information Systems* | AIS | 4-6 | Broad IS topics, AIS flagship journal |
+| *European Journal of Information Systems* | Taylor & Francis | 8-10 | European and international IS perspectives, pluralist methodologies |
+| *Information Systems Journal* | Wiley | 6-8 | Qualitative and interpretive IS research, socio-technical perspectives |
+| *Journal of Information Technology* | SAGE | 7-10 | IT strategy, policy, and organizational impact |
+| *Journal of Strategic Information Systems* | Elsevier | 8-11 | Strategic role of IS, digital transformation, organizational change |
+| *Decision Support Systems* | Elsevier | 6-8 | Analytics, decision-making, DSS design and evaluation |
+| *Information & Management* | Elsevier | 8-11 | IS management, technology adoption, organizational impact |
+| *Information and Organization* | Elsevier | 5-7 | Socio-material perspectives, qualitative and interpretive research |
+
+---
+
+## 8. Interdisciplinary
+
+| Journal | Publisher | Impact Factor Range | Typical Review Preferences |
+|---------|----------|-------------------|---------------------------|
+| *Nature* | Springer Nature | 50-70 | All natural sciences, highest standards |
+| *Science* | AAAS | 45-65 | All natural sciences, breakthrough discoveries |
+| *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* | NAS | 10-12 | Interdisciplinary scientific research |
+| *PLOS ONE* | PLOS | 3-4 | Open access, methodological rigor as primary criterion |
+| *Science Advances* | AAAS | 13-15 | Interdisciplinary science, open access |
+| *Sustainability* | MDPI | 3-4 | Cross-disciplinary sustainability |
+
+---
+
+## Usage Guide
+
+### Logic for Selecting Journals for the Journal-Fit Reviewer
+
+1. **Match the discipline first**: Find the corresponding journal list from the paper's primary discipline
+2. **Then match quality**: Select an appropriate tier of journal based on the paper's quality
+3. **Consider context**: Taiwan or Asian research may be better suited to journals with regional focus
+4. **Consider methodology**: Quantitative research may be better suited to certain journals, qualitative research to others
+
+### Notes
+
+- Impact Factor is for reference only; baseline values differ across fields
+- Emerging fields may lack high-IF journals, but that does not mean the research is unimportant
+- Open access journals should not be assumed to be lower quality by default
+- This list cannot be exhaustive; `field_analyst_agent` can recommend more precisely matched journals based on the specific paper topic
+
+---
+
+## 9. Asian & Regional Journals
+
+### Taiwan (TSSCI-Indexed)
+
+| Journal | Field | ISSN | Notes |
+|---------|-------|------|-------|
+| 教育研究集刊 (Bulletin of Educational Research) | Education | 1028-8708 | NTNU; top Taiwan education journal |
+| 高等教育 (Higher Education) | Higher Education | 1813-3282 | Taiwan HE policy and practice |
+| 課程與教學季刊 (Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly) | Curriculum Studies | 1560-1277 | Curriculum design and pedagogy |
+| 教育科學研究期刊 (Journal of Research in Education Sciences) | Education Sciences | 2073-753X | Broad education research scope |
+| 當代教育研究季刊 (Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly) | Education | 1814-4810 | NTNU; contemporary education issues |
+| 教育政策論壇 (Educational Policy Forum) | Education Policy | 1560-3601 | NCNU; policy analysis |
+| 教育心理學報 (Bulletin of Educational Psychology) | Educational Psychology | 1011-5714 | NTNU; psychological perspectives in education |
+| 測驗學刊 (Psychological Testing) | Psychometrics | 1609-4905 | Assessment and measurement |
+
+### Asia-Pacific
+
+| Journal | Field | Publisher | Impact |
+|---------|-------|-----------|--------|
+| Asia Pacific Education Review | Education | Springer | Q2 in Education; strong Asia focus |
+| Higher Education Policy | Higher Education | Springer/IAU | Q1-Q2; international HE policy |
+| Journal of Asian Public Policy | Public Policy | Taylor & Francis | Asian policy contexts |
+| Asia Pacific Journal of Education | Education | Taylor & Francis | Q2; pan-Asian education research |
+| International Journal of Educational Development | Development Education | Elsevier | Q1; includes Asia extensively |
+| Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education | Comparative Ed | Taylor & Francis | Q1; strong Asian coverage |
+| Asian Journal of Social Science | Social Sciences | Brill | Multidisciplinary Asian studies |
+
+### Open Access Options (by Field)
+
+| Field | OA Journal | Publisher | APC (USD) | Notes |
+|-------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-------|
+| Education | Frontiers in Education | Frontiers | ~$1,350 | Q2; fast review; broad scope |
+| Multidisciplinary | PLOS ONE | PLOS | ~$1,931 | Q1; accepts all fields; rigorous methodology focus |
+| Higher Education | Education Sciences | MDPI | ~$1,800 | Q2; HE section available |
+| Educational Technology | International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education | Springer | Free (funded) | Q1; excellent for ed-tech research |
+| Social Sciences | Social Sciences | MDPI | ~$1,600 | Q2; broad social science scope |
+| Asian Studies | Asian Education and Development Studies | Emerald | ~$3,350 | Q2; specifically Asian education development |

package/vendor/ars/academic-paper-reviewer/templates/editorial_decision_template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
+# Editorial Decision Template
+
+This template is used by `editorial_synthesizer_agent` to produce the final Editorial Decision Package.
+
+---
+
+## Template
+
+```markdown
+# Editorial Decision
+
+## Manuscript Information
+- **Title**: [Paper title]
+- **Manuscript ID**: [If available]
+- **Submission Date**: [Submission date]
+- **Decision Date**: [Decision date]
+- **Review Round**: [Round N]
+
+## Review Panel Provenance (#540/#740)
+
+[`reviewer_full` letters only — other modes describe their own panel composition and omit this block. Build the artifact only from the exact EIC/R1/R2/R3/DA roster bound to the canonical `reviewer_full` contract, then validate the closed Schema 6 carrier against the artifact's exact raw bytes and deterministic replay according to `references/review_panel_provenance_protocol.md`; render its values without inference.]
+
+- **Typed artifact**: [path or passport reference]
+- **Artifact SHA-256**: [raw bytes `artifact_sha256`]
+- **Panel ID**: [artifact `panel_id`]
+- **Normalized manifest SHA-256**: [artifact `normalized_manifest_sha256`]
+- **Execution topology SHA-256**: [artifact `execution_topology_sha256`]
+- **Fresh-context scope**: `within_panel_attempt_only` [does not compare retries or prior rounds]
+
+| Seat | Role ID | Actor type | Context ID | Peer outputs visible | Model family | Provider | Human reviewer ID |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| [artifact seat] | [value or `unknown`] | [value] | [value or `unknown`] | [value or `unknown`] | [value or `unknown`] | [value or `unknown`] | [value or `unknown`] |
+
+| Provenance axis | Status (`true` / `false` / `unknown`) |
+|---|---|
+| Role-separated | [artifact `axes.role_separated`] |
+| Within-panel invocation-context separation | [artifact `axes.fresh_context`] |
+| Blind to peer outputs | [artifact `axes.blind_to_peer_outputs`] |
+| Model-family distinct | [artifact `axes.model_family_distinct`] |
+| Provider distinct | [artifact `axes.provider_distinct`] |
+| Human-reviewer distinct | [artifact `axes.human_distinct`] |
+
+- **Binary independence claim**: Not computed. Persona or role diversity proves only `role_separated`; do not relabel the panel as independent.
+- **Correlated-error disclosure**: [Render artifact `correlated_error_disclosure.text` verbatim when `required: true`; otherwise write "Not required by the model-family axis; no conclusion is implied for the other axes."]
+
+---
+
+## Decision *
+
+### [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject]
+
+[If Reject, indicate subtype: Out of Scope / Fundamental Flaw / Insufficient Contribution / Premature / Resubmit Encouraged]
+
+---
+
+## Blocking Issues * (0–3, immutable source order)
+
+<!-- #574 E7: the 0-3 issues that currently BLOCK acceptance, in immutable
+     roadmap source order,
+     each with its evidence anchor and the roadmap item that resolves it, so the
+     author does not have to synthesize the blockers across five long reports.
+     ZERO rows is valid for a genuine Accept — never manufacture blockers to
+     fill the section. -->
+
+| Transport ref | Blocking issue | Source reviewer(s) | Evidence anchor | Resolving roadmap item |
+|---------------|----------------|--------------------|-----------------|------------------------|
+| R1 | [Issue] | [EIC/R1/R2/R3/DA] | [typed — `<type>: <locator>`, transported from the finding (#574 A2)] | [REV-n] |
+
+---
+
+## Reviewer Summary
+
+| Reviewer | Role | Recommendation | Confidence |
+|----------|------|---------------|------------|
+| Journal-Fit Reviewer | [Senior-editor or associate-editor identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |
+| Reviewer 1 | [Methodology expert identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |
+| Reviewer 2 | [Domain expert identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |
+| Reviewer 3 | [Cross-disciplinary expert identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |
+| Devil's Advocate | Fixed adversarial seat | N/A — findings only | N/A — per-finding only |
+
+---
+
+## Consensus Analysis *
+
+### Points of Agreement (Consensus)
+
+**[CONSENSUS-4]** (All 4 non-DA scoring reviewers agree):
+1. [Consensus content — cite relevant passages from each reviewer's report]
+2. [...]
+
+**[CONSENSUS-3]** (3/4 non-DA scoring reviewers agree, the 4th **silent**):
+1. [Consensus content — indicate which 3 agree and name the silent 4th. If the 4th *disputes* the sub-claim rather than being silent, it is a SPLIT (see Points of Disagreement), not a CONSENSUS-3.]
+2. [...]
+
+### Points of Disagreement
+
+**Disagreement 1: [Issue name]**
+- **R[X] view**: [Specific viewpoint, citing report]
+- **R[Y] view**: [Specific viewpoint, citing report]
+- **Disagreement type**: [Perspective difference / Severity disagreement / Existence disagreement / Direction disagreement]
+- **Editor's Resolution**: [Arbitration result]
+- **Resolution Rationale**: [Arbitration rationale — based on evidence/expertise/unresolved-dissent principle (#574 B1)]
+
+**Disagreement 2: [Issue name]**
+- [Same format as above]
+
+---
+
+## Decision Rationale *
+
+[200-300 words explaining the basis for this decision]
+
+Requirements:
+- Cite specific reviewer opinions
+- Explain how disagreements were resolved
+- Explain why this decision was chosen rather than a more or less strict one
+- If Reject, explain why revision also cannot salvage it
+
+---
+
+## Required Revisions * (Must Fix)
+
+[Only needed for Minor Revision and Major Revision]
+
+| Transport ref | Revision Item | Sub-Claim(s) | Severity | Evidence Anchor | Confidence | Source Reviewer | Obligation class | Cost scope | Bounded consequence |
+|---|--------------|--------------|----------|-----------------|------------|----------------|------------------|------------|---------------------|
+| R1 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [transported: critical/major (+ fallback tag if any)] | [`<type>: <locator>`] | [n — basis] | [EIC/R1/R2/R3] | must_fix | [sentence/section/re-analysis/new-data/other + locator] | [closed code + target] |
+| R2 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [transported] | [transported] | [transported] | [Source] | must_fix | [typed scope] | [closed consequence] |
+| R3 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [transported] | [transported] | [transported] | [Source] | must_fix | [typed scope] | [closed consequence] |
+...
+
+The `Sub-Claim(s)` column carries the Step 1b `sub_claim_id`(s) the item traces to (e.g. `SC-1`); a DA-CRITICAL or non-decomposed item uses `—`.
+
+### Required Item Details
+
+> **Ordinal contract (#576/#670):** `R<n>` is a transport reference, never a work rank. Numbering follows the immutable Revision Roadmap's deterministic source-traceability order filtered to `obligation_class == must_fix`; it never reads author-selected display order or author triage. Required blocks are exactly `R1..Rn` with no gaps, duplicates, or extras. The **Acceptance criteria** field stays a SINGLE-LINE bullet (`- **Acceptance criteria**: <text>`) for `scripts/check_re_review_synthesis.py`.
+
+**R1: [Title]**
+- **Problem**: [Specific description]
+- **Source**: [Which reviewer raised it, citing report passage]
+- **Requirement**: [Specifically how to fix it]
+- **Acceptance criteria**: [How to confirm the issue is resolved after fixing]
+
+**R2: [Title]**
+- [Same format as above]
+
+---
+
+## Suggested Revisions (Should Fix)
+
+| Transport ref | Revision Item | Sub-Claim(s) | Severity | Evidence Anchor | Confidence | Source Reviewer | Obligation class | Cost scope | Bounded consequence |
+|---|--------------|--------------|----------|-----------------|------------|----------------|------------------|------------|---------------------|
+| S1 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [transported] | [transported] | [transported] | [Source] | should_fix | [typed scope] | [closed consequence + target] |
+| S2 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [transported] | [transported] | [transported] | [Source] | consider | [typed scope] | [closed consequence + target] |
+...
+
+---
+
+## Revision Roadmap *
+
+### Source-traceability checklist
+
+> Keep this in immutable source order. Do not suggest a work order. The author
+> chooses `will_address`, `wont_address`, or `not_on_point` later in the
+> separate author-adjudication checkpoint.
+
+- [ ] R1 — obligation `must_fix`: [Task description]
+- [ ] R2 — obligation `must_fix`: [Task description]
+- [ ] S1 — obligation `should_fix`: [Task description]
+- [ ] S2 — obligation `consider`: [Task description]
+
+---
+
+## Journal-Supplied Deadline (Optional Transport)
+
+- **Exact deadline from source letter**: [verbatim date, or `NOT PROVIDED`]
+- Do not infer a deadline, duration, or work estimate.
+
+---
+
+## Response Letter Instructions
+
+Please use the format in `templates/revision_response_template.md` to respond to every reviewer comment item by item.
+
+**Must include**:
+1. Response and revision description for each Required Revision
+2. Response for each Suggested Revision (adopted or reason for not adopting)
+3. Change markup (mark all changes in the revised manuscript with color or track changes)
+4. Cross-reference table of new page numbers/paragraphs
+
+---
+
+## Closing
+
+[Formal closing, adjusting tone based on decision type]
+
+### Accept Version
+We are pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in [Journal Name]. [If applicable, include minor suggestions]
+
+### Minor Revision Version
+We invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript, addressing the points raised by the reviewers. We look forward to receiving your revision within [deadline].
+
+### Major Revision Version
+We encourage you to carefully consider the reviewers' comments and submit a substantially revised manuscript. Please note that the revised manuscript will undergo another round of review.
+
+### Reject Version
+After careful consideration, we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in [Journal Name]. We appreciate the effort you have put into this work and hope the reviewers' comments will be helpful for future development of this research.
+
+[If appropriate, recommend alternative journals]
+
+---
+
+## Appendix: Full Reviewer Reports
+
+[Attach all 5 complete reviewer reports — four card-backed scoring reports plus the fixed Devil's Advocate — for the author's reference]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Format Guidelines
+
+### Revision Roadmap Design Principles
+
+1. **Actionability**: Every item is a concrete task, not an abstract suggestion
+2. **Traceability**: Every item can be traced back to specific reviewer comments
+3. **Independent fields**: Transport reviewer severity unchanged; record the
+   editorial obligation, typed cost surface, and bounded consequence separately
+4. **No work ranking**: Immutable rows use source-traceability order; only the
+   author may select a presentation view or decide what to address
+5. **Exact scope**: Every item proposes exact block/operation targets; proposal
+   is not write authority
+6. **Compatibility**: Emit the closed `revision-roadmap/1.0` machine artifact
+   for `academic-paper` revision mode
+
+Finding severity is the Schema 6 enum (`critical` / `major` / `minor`), transported from the reviewer cards (#574 A3). `obligation_class` is a separate editorial gate and is never derived as a work rank from severity.