asr-workflow

ASR Workflow Router (asr-workflow)

The orchestrator for an ASR submission. ASR publishes across all of sociology and across very

different methods, so the router's first job is to confirm the work has **broad sociological

significance** and to send the user to the matching skill for their stage and method.

When to trigger

• Starting a new ASR paper and unsure where to begin
• Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
• Deciding between a full Article and a Comment/Reply
• Returning with a decision letter (route to asr-rebuttal)

First question: manuscript type & method

| Situation | Type | Note |

|-----------|------|------|

| Full original study, broad significance | Article (≤ 15,000 words incl. refs + footnotes) | the main pipeline below |

| Critique of / reply to a published ASR piece | Comment/Reply (≤ 3,000 words) | tight scope; engage the original directly |

Then identify the method, because design and analysis advice differ sharply:

quantitative/demographic · comparative-historical · ethnographic/interview · network · computational.

Routing map (stage → skill)

Idea / fit?                      → asr-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field?  → asr-literature-positioning
What's the argument?             → asr-theory-building
Is the design defensible?        → asr-research-design
Are the analyses sound?          → asr-data-analysis
Are the exhibits clear?          → asr-tables-figures
Does it read for the discipline? → asr-writing-style
Data documented / shareable?     → asr-data-and-transparency
How will it be judged?           → asr-review-process
Ready to submit?                 → asr-submission
Got an R&R / decision?           → asr-rebuttal

Default order

`topic-selection → literature-positioning → theory-building → research-design → data-analysis →

tables-figures → writing-style → data-and-transparency → review-process → submission → rebuttal`

Iterate: ethnographic and comparative-historical papers especially loop theory ↔ evidence many times.

Symptom-to-skill dispatch

The router's value is matching a felt problem to the right ASR skill fast. Because the ASA flagship

judges breadth of significance and method-appropriate rigor together, most symptoms map cleanly to one

sub-skill — use this lookup before defaulting to the linear order.

| Symptom you arrive with | Likely root | Route to |

|--------------------------|-------------|----------|

| "A reader says it's too narrow" | fit / framing | asr-topic-selection |

| "Reviewer says I missed key work" | cross-subfield positioning | asr-literature-positioning |

| "It's called merely descriptive" | no portable mechanism | asr-theory-building |

| "Reviewer doubts the causal/case logic" | design | asr-research-design |

| "They want more robustness" | analysis | asr-data-analysis |

| "An exhibit is unclear" | exhibits | asr-tables-figures |

| "It reads as subfield-only" | prose for the discipline | asr-writing-style |

| "How could anyone verify this?" | transparency | asr-data-and-transparency |

| "What will reviewers want?" | expectations | asr-review-process |

| "Submitting tomorrow" | preflight | asr-submission |

| "Got an R&R" | response letter | asr-rebuttal |

Worked micro-example (illustrative routing)

A user arrives mid-project with a comparative-historical study and a vague worry.

User: "I have four country cases and good archives, but a colleague says it 'won't fly at ASR.'"
Router read: the worry is breadth/portability, not data → start at asr-theory-building (extract the
  portable causal logic), then asr-literature-positioning (general debate), then asr-research-design
  (case-selection + adjudication), looping theory ↔ evidence as comparative-historical work demands.
Type: full study, broad claim → Article (≤15,000 incl. refs + footnotes), not a Comment.
Then: asr-tables-figures (evidence table) → asr-writing-style → asr-data-and-transparency.

The router resists the linear default and sends the comparative-historical case to the theory and

positioning skills first, where its fit risk actually lives.

Referee-stage pushback → which skill answers it

• "Not significant for the discipline." → asr-topic-selection then asr-writing-style (front-load

stakes).

• "Method isn't rigorous for its kind." → asr-research-design in the matching tradition.
• "Masking is broken." → asr-submission masking sweep before re-upload.

Calibration anchors

• Broad significance is the gate, not a garnish. The flagship's first question is always whether the

work reaches the whole discipline; route there whenever fit is in doubt.

• Method sets the path, not just the advice. Ethnographic and comparative-historical papers loop

theory and evidence repeatedly; do not force them through a single linear pass.

• Confirm volatile submission specifics (fee, caps) against the journal's current guidelines when

the router reaches asr-submission.

Anti-patterns

• Treating ASR like a subfield journal — the contribution must reach the whole discipline
• Forcing a regression template onto ethnographic, historical, or interpretive work
• Padding a focused critique into an Article when a Comment/Reply fits
• Forgetting the $25 processing fee and the masked-manuscript requirement at submission

Output format

【Stage】idea / positioning / theory / design / analysis / exhibits / writing / transparency / review / submit / rebut
【Type】Article / Comment-Reply
【Method】quant / comparative-historical / ethnographic / network / computational
【Route to】asr-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — sociology data + software by method
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — official ASR URLs behind every fact in this pack