本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

advmat-results-framing

Use when an Advanced Materials result is sound but its central advance and significance are not yet sharp, or when a Communication's opening paragraph must double as its abstract. Structures the one-advance narrative; does not run characterization or design figures.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Advanced Materials Results Framing (advmat-results-framing)

When to trigger

  • You have the data but the "why this is an advance" is fuzzy
  • The draft reads like a chronological synthesis-then-characterization log, not one argument
  • You have several results and have not chosen the headline advance
  • You are writing a Communication and must fold the abstract into the opening paragraph
  • advmat-scope-fit returned Adv. Mater. but flagged the impact framing as weak

The one-advance discipline

An Adv. Mater. paper is organized around one central advance — a new material, a new mechanism, or a new property regime. Everything else is support.

  • Primary advance — the single sentence the title and abstract (or opening paragraph) both encode.
  • Supporting results — the structure–property evidence and the device demonstration that establish the advance.
  • Everything else — process-optimization sweeps, ancillary characterization, secondary samples → Supporting Information (see advmat-supplementary).

If you have two co-equal advances, you likely have two papers, or one belongs in a sibling journal.

The structure → property → function chain

Materials referees reward a clean causal chain. Frame the paper so each link is explicit:

  1. Structure/composition — what the material is (new phase, architecture, interface, composition).
  2. Property — the measured property that structure produces (transport, mechanical, optical, electrochemical).
  3. Function/device — the property demonstrated in a working device, benchmarked against the state of the art.

The advance lives at whichever link is genuinely new; name it, and show the chain holds end to end. A paper that jumps from structure to a device metric without the property mechanism in between invites the "why does it work?" rejection.

The opening (Communication: opening paragraph = abstract)

In a Communication, there is no separate abstract — the first paragraph carries the significance and must read as a self-contained mini-paper. A reliable four-move pattern (also the model for a Research Article abstract):

  1. The materials context — one or two sentences a non-specialist materials scientist understands.
  2. The open problem / limitation — the trade-off, instability, or missing material that has blocked progress.
  3. What this work reports — the central advance, stated plainly, with the key metric or qualitative surprise.
  4. Why it matters broadly — the design consequence for a wider materials or device community.

Do not open with a paragraph-long literature tour. The advance should appear in the first paragraph.

Framing decision branches

SymptomMove
Two co-equal headline advancesSplit, or demote one to support / SI
Result stated as a metric only ("we reached X%")Reframe as the new material principle that produced it
Novelty asserted, not shownTie it to the design rule / trade-off it changes
Structure→property→function chain has a gapAdd the missing mechanism link, or scope the claim down
Opening buried under backgroundCut to 2–3 sentences; move detail to the body or SI

Checklist

  • Exactly one primary advance, expressible in one sentence
  • Title encodes the advance (new material/mechanism/property), not just the topic
  • Structure → property → function chain is explicit and unbroken
  • Opening / abstract reaches the advance within the first paragraph
  • For a Communication, the opening paragraph stands alone as the abstract
  • Significance tied to a design rule or trade-off it changes, not asserted
  • Supporting results genuinely reinforce the primary advance; the rest is in the SI

Anti-patterns

  • A "kitchen-sink" paper reporting every sample the project produced
  • Metric-first framing with no new material science behind the number
  • A structure-to-device leap that skips the property mechanism
  • Overclaiming applications the material has not been shown to enable
  • A Communication opening paragraph that reads as background, not as an abstract

Output format

【Primary advance】one sentence
【Title encodes advance】yes / fix
【Structure→property→function】all links present?  yes / gap: ...
【Opening moves】context / problem / advance / significance — all present?
【Communication abstract-in-paragraph-1】yes / n/a / fix
【Demoted to SI】list
【Next】advmat-methods (characterization) or advmat-figures (lead figure)

Abstract/keyword/opening rules differ by article type and evolve — verify the current requirements on the official Wiley Advanced Materials author page.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する