rt-venue-reframe

Cross-Venue Reframe (rt-venue-reframe)

rt-journal-match answers which venue next. This answers the question that

immediately follows and that nothing else in the repository covers: **what actually has

to change in the paper.**

Authors do this after almost every rejection, and they do it badly — usually by

swapping the journal name in the cover letter and resubmitting. A real reframe is a

diff across five layers, and both endpoints are already documented in this repo: the

source venue's pack and the target venue's pack.

When to trigger

• A paper was rejected at venue A and the next rung is venue B.
• The author is choosing between two live targets and wants to know the cost of each.
• An editor or referee said "this reads like a <other venue> paper".
• A paper written for an international venue is being re-aimed at a Chinese venue, or

the reverse — the largest reframe distance in this repository.

Inputs

1. From venue and to venue — as venue_ids in

[venue-index.tsv](../../../shared-resources/journal-selection/venue-index.tsv).

If the author only names a rejection, take the next rung from

[ladder.tsv](../../../shared-resources/journal-selection/ladder.tsv) — filter to

same_discipline = yes and prefer high mentions, then sanity-check against

rt-journal-match.

1. The manuscript — at minimum the title, abstract, intro, and the main table.
2. The rejection signal, if any — desk reject, referee reject, or "not a fit".

Method — diff five layers, in this order

Read the to venue's fit/topic-selection and writing-style skills first; read the

from venue's only to identify what the paper currently optimizes for. Where a venue

is a breadth-bundle profile, its single SKILL.md (profile_path) carries the same

five layers in condensed form.

| Layer | Read | Produce |

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

| 1. Contribution claim | both packs' -topic-selection / -contribution-framing | the one sentence the paper must now be able to answer "why does this matter?" with. This is the layer that decides acceptance; the rest is execution. |

| 2. Introduction arc | both packs' *-writing-style | what moves to the first page, what drops to §2, what leaves entirely. General-interest venues want the surprising result early; field venues want the literature debt paid first. |

| 3. Evidence bar | the to-venue's -identification / -robustness / *-experiments | which robustness the new venue treats as baseline and the paper lacks, and which existing appendix material is now dead weight. |

| 4. House style & format | the to-venue's *-writing-style + resources/official-source-map.md | length, abstract style, exhibit conventions, citation style, appendix policy. Read the source map live — never quote a page cap or format rule from memory. |

| 5. Policy & package | the to-venue's *-replication-package / data policy in the source map | what the data-and-code deposit now requires; proprietary-data disclosure differences. |

Then rank the diff by cost × necessity: a reframe that needs a new identification

strategy is a different paper, and the honest answer may be "this is not a reframe,

pick a different rung."

Hard rules

1. Read both packs. Never reframe from memory of a venue's reputation.
2. **All volatile facts (length, format, fees, data policy) come from the to-venue's

resources/official-source-map.md at reframe time.**

1. Defer fit judgement to the to-venue's own topic-selection skill — this skill

sequences and diffs, it does not overrule the venue's pack.

1. Say when a reframe is not worth it. If layer 1 or 3 requires new evidence the

author cannot produce, state that plainly and route back to rt-journal-match for a

different rung. Framing cannot rescue an identification problem.

1. Preserve the paper's honesty. Reframing changes emphasis, structure and claim

scope — never the findings, magnitudes, or caveats. If a target venue's bar seems

to require overstating a result, that is a signal the venue is wrong, not the result.

Output format

【From → To】venue A → venue B  (ladder evidence: n mentions | manual)
【Distance】small / moderate / different-paper — one line of why
【1 Contribution claim】before → after (the new "why it matters" sentence)
【2 Introduction arc】move / cut / add, in order
【3 Evidence bar】missing-and-required · now-dead-weight
【4 House style】length · abstract · exhibits · citations   (source-map read: <date>)
【5 Policy】data-and-code deltas
【Cost-ranked plan】1..n, each with an effort estimate
【Do not do this reframe if】the condition that makes it futile

Anti-patterns

• Rewriting only the introduction. Layer 1 usually implies layer 3, and a paper whose

claim moved but whose evidence did not gets desk-rejected faster than the original.

• Reframing "upward" after a referee reject without addressing the binding objection —

route through the from-venue's *-robustness skill first.

• Treating a Chinese ↔ English move as a translation task. The contribution grammar

(制度背景, 边际贡献, policy salience vs. general-interest novelty) differs, and both

packs document their own.

• Quoting the target's page cap or fee from memory instead of the source map.

Next: rt-desk-reject-risk to score the reframed draft against the new venue, then

rt-submission-readiness for the mechanical bar.