sci-fit
GitHub评估研究成果是否符合Science期刊的广泛兴趣与重要性标准。通过模拟跨学科读者视角、重要性阶梯及致命拒稿陷阱，辅助判断是否投稿Science或转向其他期刊，避免在不符合要求的稿件上浪费精力。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前评估目标期刊
选择Science与其他顶级期刊
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill sci-fit -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "sci-fit",
"description": "Use before any writing to stress-test whether a result clears Science's (AAAS) desk-reject filter — broad significance and general interest across disciplines. Decides Science vs Science Advances vs a specialist journal before you invest in prose."
}
Scope & Significance Fit (sci-fit)
Why this is skill #1
Science triages most submissions to rejection without external review. The gate is not "is it correct" — it is "is it of broad significance and interest to a general scientific readership." A flawless specialist result is desk-rejected if only specialists would care. Run this before investing in prose.
When to trigger
- Before drafting, to decide if Science is even the right venue.
- When a co-author says "this is a Science paper" and you need a sober second opinion.
- When choosing between Science, Science Advances, Nature, PNAS, and a top field journal.
The general-interest test (three independent readers)
Imagine three editors from different fields (e.g., a climate scientist, a cell biologist, a condensed-matter physicist). The paper passes only if at least two would say "I would want to read this and I could explain why it matters to my students."
- One field excited + two indifferent → specialist journal, not Science.
- Methodologically impressive but incremental conclusion → likely desk reject.
- Conclusion changes how a broad community thinks/acts → strong fit.
Significance ladder (weak → strong)
- Confirms an expected result in one system. (Weak — field journal.)
- Extends a known effect to a new system/scale. (Borderline — Advances/PNAS.)
- Resolves a standing controversy the broad community knows about. (Strong.)
- Reveals a previously unknown phenomenon, mechanism, or capability. (Strong.)
- Overturns a widely held assumption with decisive evidence. (Strongest.)
If you cannot place the work at rung 3+, Science is a long shot — be honest with the user and name the realistic target.
Fatal desk-reject triggers
- The advance is incremental over the authors' own prior paper.
- The claim is narrow ("in our mouse line, under our conditions…") with no general lesson.
- The "broad implication" is asserted, not demonstrated (a hand-wave in the last paragraph).
- Over-claiming: conclusion outruns the evidence (a top reason for both desk and post-review rejection).
- Timeliness mismatch: a third group is about to publish the same thing and you have no distinguishing advance.
Venue routing
| Situation | Recommend |
|---|---|
| Rung 4–5, decisive, broad, timely | Science (Report/Article) |
| Solid, broad-ish, but not top-1% novelty | Science Advances / PNAS |
| Deep but specialist | top field journal |
| Clinical/medical with patient outcomes | NEJM / Lancet (use those packs) |
| Strong but needs more mechanism to be decisive | add experiments before submitting |
Worked triage: three results, three verdicts
- Result A — "A gut microbe metabolite lowers blood pressure in mice." A physiologist is excited; a physicist and a geologist are indifferent. Rung 2 (extends a known axis to one more metabolite). Verdict: specialist journal, not Science, unless a general mechanism (e.g., a receptor that generalizes across mammals including humans) is demonstrated.
- Result B — "A machine-learning model predicts protein structure at near-experimental accuracy." Structural biologists, chemists, drug developers, and computational scientists all care; it changes how a broad community works. Rung 4–5. Verdict: Science/Nature tier — the breadth is real and the lesson transfers.
- Result C — "We resolve a decades-old controversy over whether trait T is heritable, using a dataset an order of magnitude larger than prior work." Rung 3, timely (new dataset crossed a threshold — a valid "why now"). Verdict: strong Science fit if the resolution is decisive and not merely suggestive.
The discriminating question in every case is not difficulty but transfer: does the conclusion change how a community outside the authors' subfield thinks or acts?
Editor's-eye rubric (score before you claim breadth)
- Can a one-sentence significance claim be written with zero subfield jargon? If not, breadth is probably absent.
- Would the result plausibly be summarized in a Science Perspective or a news outlet? Editors think about this.
- Is the general lesson shown (data in this paper) or asserted (a closing hand-wave)? Only "shown" survives.
- Is there concurrent work that erases your distinguishing advance? If so, name what still makes yours decisive.
Output format
【Significance rung】 1–5 + one-line justification
【General-interest test】 pass / borderline / fail (which 2 of 3 readers care, and why)
【Fatal triggers present】 [...]
【Recommended venue】 Science / Science Advances / PNAS / field journal / NEJM-Lancet
【If staying with Science, the single sentence of broad significance】 "..."
【Next】 sci-framing (if pass) | reconsider venue (if fail)
Anti-patterns
- Do not rationalize a specialist result into "broad significance" with adjectives. Editors discount adjectives.
- Do not confuse technical difficulty with significance — hard ≠ important.
- Do not let sunk cost ("we already did the work") drive the venue decision.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 14:24
