pnas-workflow
GitHubPNAS投稿流程路由器，根据稿件当前状态（如显著性、投稿通道、格式等）推荐对应的专用子技能，引导用户完成从选题评估到回复审稿人的全流程。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill pnas-workflow -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "pnas-workflow",
"description": "Use when deciding which pnas-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a manuscript from significance test through reviewer rebuttal for PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills."
}
PNAS Workflow Router (pnas-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you which pnas- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
PNAS publishes across three broad divisions — Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences — and every research article is filed under one of them plus a minor subject area (pnas-writing). Two things make PNAS unlike Science or Nature and reshape the workflow: the submission track decision (Direct vs Contributed by an NAS member — pnas-track) and the mandatory Significance Statement (pnas-significance). Settle the track early; it changes how the paper is handled and reviewed.
When to trigger
- "What should I do next with this draft?"
- A draft arrives and you must diagnose the current bottleneck.
- The user is unsure whether to use Direct or Contributed submission.
- Reviews arrive from PNAS and you need to switch into rebuttal mode.
The single most important gate
PNAS is selective but more accepting than Science or Nature: it values solid, important science, not only the flashiest top-1% result. The first question is still "is this broadly significant and high-quality enough for a general scientific readership?" — but a strong, rigorous, important paper that is not the splashiest discovery of the year still has a real home here. Route to pnas-fit first, always; it also handles the realistic step-down from Science/Nature.
Routing table
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Not sure the result is broad/significant enough, or stepping down from Science/Nature | pnas-fit |
| Unsure whether to use Direct or Contributed (NAS-member) submission | pnas-track |
| No Significance Statement, or it just restates the abstract | pnas-significance |
| Abstract too long/narrow; conflated with significance statement | pnas-abstract |
| Structure unclear; Methods misplaced; no classification/keywords | pnas-writing |
| Figures over budget; sizing/fonts/colors non-compliant | pnas-figures |
| Stats under-reported; n/error bars/tests unclear; not reproducible | pnas-statistics |
| No data/code availability plan or deposition | pnas-data |
| References not in PNAS numbered style | pnas-citation |
| About to submit; need a preflight checklist + cover letter | pnas-submission |
| Received reviews / a revision decision | pnas-rebuttal |
Default order
pnas-fit— clear the broad-significance bar; confirm PNAS is the right venuepnas-track— pick Direct vs Contributed (do this early; it shapes handling)pnas-writing— structure, length, classification + keywords, Methods placementpnas-figures— finalize display items within budgetpnas-statistics— rigor & reproducibility reportingpnas-data— data / code availability + depositionpnas-significance— the ≤120-word Significance Statement (high-value)pnas-abstract— ≤250-word self-contained abstract (late polish)pnas-citation— PNAS numbered reference style (late polish)pnas-submission— preflight + cover letterpnas-rebuttal— after review
pnas-significance,pnas-abstract, andpnas-citationare late-stage polish — but the Significance Statement is high-value and editor-facing, so do not leave it to the last minute. Draft it as soon as the claim is locked.
Decision shortcuts
- "Is this PNAS-level, or should it go to a field journal / up to Science?" →
pnas-fit - "A co-author is an NAS member and offered to communicate the paper" →
pnas-track - "I have an abstract but no Significance Statement" →
pnas-significance - "My significance statement is just the abstract again" →
pnas-significance - "Where do Materials and Methods go?" →
pnas-writing(PNAS keeps them in the main text) - "What classification do I file under?" →
pnas-writing - "No accession numbers / no code repo" →
pnas-data
How PNAS differs from Science and Nature
- More accepting: PNAS publishes solid, important, broadly significant work across Biological/Physical/Social Sciences — a sound realistic target when a paper is strong but not the single splashiest result Science/Nature chase.
pnas-fitmakes the step-down call. - Submission tracks: PNAS uniquely offers Direct Submission (standard, editor-assigned, peer reviewed) and Contributed Submission (an NAS member communicates their own paper and arranges reviewers, limited to a few per member per year). The older Prearranged Editor option and the discontinued "Communicated" track are covered in
pnas-track. No Science/Nature equivalent. - Significance Statement: PNAS requires a separate ≤120-word Significance Statement written for a broad scientific reader — not Science's one-sentence summary, not Nature's summary paragraph. See
pnas-significance. - Abstract: PNAS abstracts run to ~250 words — do not copy Science's ≤125-word abstract or one-sentence summary.
- Methods: PNAS keeps a Materials and Methods section in the main text (unlike Science Reports / Cell, which push methods elsewhere).
Manuscript-stage routing snapshot
Copy this manifest into your working notes and update the status as each pnas-* skill clears. It mirrors the default order above and the PNAS-specific facts this router tracks — the three submission tracks, the ≤120-word Significance Statement, the ~250-word abstract, and the general-scientific-readership bar. Nothing here is a live editorial rule; confirm current caps in the author guidelines.
pnas_manuscript_snapshot:
divisions: [Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences]
cross_division_reader_test: pending # pass | borderline | fail
significance_bar: high-quality + broadly significant (not only the flashiest)
submission_track:
choice: undecided # Direct | Contributed | Prearranged Editor
direct: { editor_assigned: true, suggested_reviewers_ready: false }
contributed: { nas_member: false, within_annual_quota: null, reviewers_secured: 0 }
decide_by: early # track shapes handling + reviewer choice
stage_gates:
- skill: pnas-fit # step 1: clear the broad-significance bar
status: not_started # not_started | in_progress | cleared
- skill: pnas-track # step 2: Direct vs Contributed (decide early)
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-writing # step 3: structure, classification, Methods in-text
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-figures # step 4: display items within budget
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-statistics # step 5: rigor + reproducibility reporting
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-data # step 6: data/code availability + deposition
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-significance # step 7: Significance Statement (<=120 words, editor-facing)
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-abstract # step 8: self-contained abstract (~250 words)
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-citation # step 9: PNAS numbered reference style
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-submission # step 10: preflight + cover letter -> GO/NO-GO
status: not_started
- skill: pnas-rebuttal # step 11: after review
status: not_started
key_artifacts:
significance_statement: { required: true, max_words: 120, distinct_from_abstract: null }
abstract: { required: true, approx_words: 250, single_paragraph: true }
materials_and_methods: { location: main-text }
verdict: NO-GO # flips to GO only when pnas-submission clears
Anti-patterns
- Do not skip
pnas-fitand start polishing prose. - Do not decide the track at the end — it shapes editor handling and reviewer choice (
pnas-track). - Do not treat the Significance Statement as a formality bolted on at submission.
- Do not generate a rebuttal before the main text is actually revised.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:11
