--- name: SCI/SSCI Academic Polishing slug: sci-ssci-academic-polishing category: Writing description: Polishes Chinese academic prose into English and refines English manuscripts for SCI/SSCI journals, preserving scientific fidelity while enhancing clarity and disciplinary tone. github: "https://github.com/Yila-AI/sci-ssci-skills/tree/main/skills/sci-ssci-polishing" language: Python stars: 84 forks: 8 install: "npx degit https://github.com/Yila-AI/sci-ssci-skills/tree/main/skills/sci-ssci-polishing ~/.claude/skills/sci-ssci-polishing" installs_to: ~/.claude/skills/sci-ssci-polishing source_path: skills/sci-ssci-polishing/SKILL.md collection_size: 4 category_size: 1012 collection_url: "https://dirskills.com/collections/Yila-AI/sci-ssci-skills" added: 2026-08-11T07:21:06.483Z last_synced: 2026-08-11T07:21:06.483Z canonical_url: "https://dirskills.com/skills/sci-ssci-academic-polishing" --- # SCI/SSCI Academic Polishing Polishes Chinese academic prose into English and refines English manuscripts for SCI/SSCI journals, preserving scientific fidelity while enhancing clarity and disciplinary tone. **Install:** ```bash npx degit https://github.com/Yila-AI/sci-ssci-skills/tree/main/skills/sci-ssci-polishing ~/.claude/skills/sci-ssci-polishing ``` ## README # SCI/SSCI Academic Polishing Polish the writing, not the science. Improve clarity, precision, coherence, concision, and disciplinary register while treating the author's evidence and claims as immutable unless the author explicitly authorizes a substantive change. ## Load only what is needed - Always read `references/invariants.md` and `references/output-contract.md`. - Read `references/rhetorical-routing.md` when polishing a complete section or when the section type is known. - Read `references/corpus-method.md` only when explaining how this Skill was built or what its evidence base can and cannot support. ## Inputs Accept either: 1. Chinese academic prose to translate into English. 2. English academic prose to polish. The input may be one paragraph or a complete section. Useful context includes field, target journal, section type, preferred English variety, and terminology constraints. Do not require this context when the prose can be handled conservatively. ## Workflow ### 1. Classify the request Identify: - mode: `Chinese -> academic English` or `English polishing`; - scope: `paragraph` or `full section`; - domain family: `SCI`, `SSCI`, or `uncertain/interdisciplinary`; - rhetorical function: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, literature review, or mixed; - requested intensity: light, standard, or substantial language revision. If the field or section is unclear, infer cautiously from the text. State the inference only when it materially affects the revision. ### 2. Build a preservation ledger before rewriting Extract and lock every item listed in `references/invariants.md`, including all numbers, statistical expressions, units, citations, named entities, comparison directions, uncertainty markers, limitations, and claim strength. Also record the paragraph's claim skeleton: ```text context/problem -> method/evidence -> finding -> interpretation/qualification ``` Do not proceed as if two different skeletons were equivalent. If the intended relation is ambiguous, keep the weaker interpretation and add an author query. ### 3. Route by rhetorical function Use `references/rhetorical-routing.md` rather than applying one generic “academic style.” A Methods paragraph should optimize reproducibility; a Results paragraph should optimize evidence order; an SSCI literature review should optimize synthesis and theoretical positioning. For a full section: 1. revise each paragraph locally; 2. label its rhetorical job in a private working outline; 3. repair cross-paragraph progression and transitions; 4. remove redundant setup only when no claim, citation role, or limitation is lost; 5. re-audit the complete section. ### 4. Revise the prose Prioritize in this order: 1. factual fidelity; 2. explicit logical relations; 3. correct disciplinary terminology; 4. sentence-level clarity; 5. paragraph coherence; 6. concision and rhythm. Use the smallest revision that achieves the requested improvement. Published-looking prose is not permission to rewrite already clear sentences, inflate formality, or force every sentence toward one journal's rhythm. Apply these default practices: - put the main actor and action early; - prefer precise verbs over inflated nominalizations; - keep evidence adjacent to the claim it supports; - use signposting only when it clarifies a real relation; - vary sentence length without making sentences ornamental; - preserve conventional technical phrases when they are already correct; - translate meaning and rhetorical function, not Chinese word order; - avoid thesaurus substitution, promotional language, and journal mimicry. Never invent a citation, mechanism, limitation, rationale, transition, or implication merely to make the prose sound complete. ### 5. Run the preservation audit Compare source and revision item by item. The audit must explicitly check: - numbers, ranges, signs, decimal places, percentages, units, and statistical symbols; - sample sizes, group labels, time points, model names, datasets, and instruments; - citations and their attachment to claims; - negation, comparison direction, modality, hedging, and causal strength; - limitations, exceptions, boundary conditions, and conclusions. If any substantive difference remains, revert it or surface it as an author query. Do not hide it in “key changes.” When source and revision are available as local text, use `scripts/check_invariants.py` for a deterministic first pass over numbers, citations, and user-supplied protected terms. Treat a passing script result as necessary but not sufficient; manually audit claim direction, modality, causal strength, citation attachment, limitations, and conclusions. ## Editing intensity ### Light Correct grammar, punctuation, word choice, and local flow. Preserve sentence and paragraph structure whenever possible. ### Standard (default) Rewrite sentences and improve paragraph progression while preserving every scientific proposition and citation role. ### Substantial language revision Reorder sentences or paragraphs for rhetorical clarity, but never add, remove, merge, or strengthen scientific claims without explicit author approval. List every meaningful reordering. ## Refusal boundary If the user asks to make unsupported findings sound significant, hide limitations, convert association into causation, fabricate citations, or change results without evidence, refuse that part and offer a fidelity-preserving revision. ## Output Follow `references/output-contract.md`. Return the polished English first, then a concise change summary, preservation audit, and author queries only when needed.