Literature Positioning (demog-literature-positioning)

SkillDev tools

Use when positioning a Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) manuscript against the population-science literature so it reads as a contribution of general interest to demographers. Demography readers span fertility, mortality, migration, family, and health, so the paper must engage the demographic literatures they expect. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the lit review.

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.

Then ask your AI: use the Literature Positioning (demog-literature-positioning) skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills in Demography-Skills/skills/demog-literature-positioning/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Demography editors screen for whether a paper is "of general interest to demographers." A paper that engages only a narrow applied literature — and not the demographic conversation it belongs to — reads as off-fit and risks desk rejection. The goal is to place the paper where population scientists across components can see the gap and the move.

When to trigger

  • Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
  • A reviewer said you "missed the demographic literature" or "this is just an applied paper"
  • Your applied literature is solid but the paper doesn't connect to population science
  • You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior demographic work

How Demography wants the literature engaged

  1. Engage the demographic conversation, not a pile of citations. Identify the open question in population science your paper speaks to — a contested trend, an unexplained gap, a measurement dispute, a mechanism debate.
  2. Two audiences at once. Satisfy specialists in your component (you know the frontier) and general demographers (why it matters for population change). A mortality reader should see why your fertility paper matters.
  3. Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is mismeasured, undertheorized, or contested in the demographic record, and why resolving it advances population science.
  4. Position the contribution as a move. "Prior work attributes the trend to X; we decompose it and show component Y, not X, drives it" — or "the standard measure conflates tempo and quantum; we separate them."
  5. Pre-empt the obvious objection. Reviewers are expert demographers; acknowledge the strongest rival explanation and say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to demog-research-design).

Cross-component engagement (a distinctive Demography demand)

If your paper is…also engage…
an estimate of a fertility/mortality/migration trendthe broader population-change literature it bears on
a measurement or formal-demographic advancethe substantive literatures that will use the measure
a single-country casethe comparative/general demographic theory it speaks to
a health or family outcomethe demographic consequences (aging, structure, life expectancy)

Anti-patterns

  • A "literature dump" with no organizing demographic question
  • Engaging only a narrow applied (e.g., clinical or single-policy) literature
  • Strawmanning prior demographic estimates, or hiding the closest competitor study
  • Self-citation that breaks double-blind anonymity (avoid self-identifying references — see demog-submission)
  • Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental

Positioning pass for Demography

Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the demographic process, data source, time scale, selection/migration/mortality issue, and uncertainty; then test whether the manuscript addresses population-science reviewers who inspect demographic process, measurement, cohort/period logic, and population validity.

  • Primary move: Build a three-column map: incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, and this manuscript's delta; include one sibling-venue omission that would make a referee doubt the fit.
  • Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
  • Sibling comparison: compare against Population and Development Review for policy synthesis, JMF for family process, Social Forces for broader sociology; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
  • Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Conversation】the open demographic question / contested trend
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-component)
【Gap】what is mismeasured / unexplained / contested
【Move】how this paper changes the demographic record or understanding
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】demog-theory-building

Supplementary resources

Signals

GitHub stars
1k
Forks
155
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
demog-literature-positioning
Source
github.com/brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills