Use when finding open access journals, checking journal policies, or identifying predatory publishers. Helps researchers locate legitimate open access venues and avoid publication scams.
53
61%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/open-access-scout/SKILL.mdFind legitimate open access journals, verify publisher credibility, and avoid predatory publication traps.
Use this command to verify that the packaged script entry point can be parsed before deeper execution.
python -m py_compile scripts/main.pyUse these concrete commands for validation. They are intentionally self-contained and avoid placeholder paths.
python -m py_compile scripts/main.py
python scripts/main.py --helpfrom scripts.oa_scout import OpenAccessScout
scout = OpenAccessScout()
# Find journals
journals = scout.find_journals(
subject="oncology",
impact_range=(2, 5),
max_apc=2000
)results = scout.search(
keywords=["immunotherapy", "cancer"],
filters={
"indexed_in": ["PubMed", "Scopus"],
"peer_review": "double_blind",
"apc_max": 2500
}
)assessment = scout.assess_journal("Journal of Medical Advances")
print(f"Trust score: {assessment.score}/100")
print(f"Red flags: {assessment.red_flags}")Warning Signs:
comparison = scout.compare_apc(
journals=["Journal A", "Journal B"],
currency="USD"
)python scripts/oa_scout.py --search "oncology immunotherapy" --max-apc 2000Skill ID: 210 | Version: 1.0 | License: MIT
Every final response should make these items explicit when they are relevant:
scripts/main.py fails, report the failure point, summarize what still can be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback.This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of open-access-scout and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.
Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:
open-access-scoutonly handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.
Use the following fixed structure for non-trivial requests:
If the request is simple, you may compress the structure, but still keep assumptions and limits explicit when they affect correctness.
| Field | Required | Format/Source | Example | If Missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User task description | Yes | Text | Research question, writing goal, analysis objective | Stop and ask user to provide |
| Primary input material | Depends on task | Text, file path, ID, table, or literature | PMID, PDF, CSV, DOCX, keywords, etc. | Specify which material type is missing |
| Output preference | No | Text | Language, format, target journal, template | Use skill default format |
63c61d3
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.