Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› annual-review-of-environment-and-resources
annual-review-of-environment-and-resources
GitHub用于评估稿件是否符合Annual Review of Environment and Resources期刊的邀请制综述定位，提供权威综合标准、结构期望及拒稿启发式规则，辅助作者进行 venue 选择或重构。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定AREAR并需检查环境资源领域综述的匹配度
受邀或拟投稿希望了解权威综述标准与结构要求
需确认该刊不接受原创研究或常规文献综述
需要为原创研究或狭窄主题寻找替代发表途径
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill annual-review-of-environment-and-resources -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "annual-review-of-environment-and-resources",
"description": "Use when targeting the Annual Review of Environment and Resources or deciding whether an environment-and-resources synthesis fits this invited-review venue. Encodes the journal's invited-review fit, the authoritative-synthesis bar, structure expectations, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Annual Review of Environment and Resources (annual-review-of-environment-and-resources)
Journal positioning
The Annual Review of Environment and Resources (AREAR) is the Annual Reviews venue for authoritative, largely invited review articles that synthesize fields across environment and natural resources — climate, energy, water, land, biodiversity, ecosystems, pollution, and the human and institutional dimensions of resource use. Its defining expectation is a definitive, field-defining synthesis by recognized experts: a critical, balanced account that consolidates a body of literature, frames the state of knowledge, and sets the agenda — not primary research and not a routine literature review. Because most articles are commissioned, an uninvited primary-research submission is the single largest misfit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines or its editorial/commissioning process. Before submitting or proposing, re-check the live AREAR guidance.
When to trigger
- The author names the Annual Review of Environment and Resources and wants a fit check for a synthesis in the environment-and-resources space.
- An author has been invited (or wants to propose) a field-defining review and needs the authoritative-synthesis bar and structure expectations.
- The author must understand that this is an invited-review venue, not an outlet for primary research or routine reviews.
- The author needs a credible alternative route if the work is primary research or too narrow.
Scope & topic fit
- Cross-cutting syntheses of climate change, energy systems and transitions, and their human and policy dimensions.
- Water, land, food, and biodiversity resources: state of knowledge, drivers, and governance.
- Pollution, environmental health, and Earth-system change synthesized for a broad environment-and-resources readership.
- Human–environment systems: institutions, economics, governance, justice, and behavior in resource use and environmental management.
- Methodological and conceptual syntheses that integrate natural- and social-science evidence on an environmental problem.
- Emerging, interdisciplinary topics ripe for a consolidating, agenda-setting review.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is the authoritative synthesis: comprehensive, current, and balanced coverage by authors with standing in the field.
- The review must do more than summarize — it must critically evaluate, reconcile conflicting evidence, and articulate the frontier and open questions.
- Coverage should integrate across disciplines and methods where the topic demands, with even-handed treatment of contested areas.
- Sources should be primary and current; the synthesis should not lean on prior reviews or miss major recent developments.
- Where the topic involves quantitative claims, the review should represent the weight of evidence and its uncertainty accurately, not advocate one study.
- Original data are not the contribution; any illustrative synthesis figures must integrate the literature, not present new primary results.
Structure & house style
- Annual Reviews format: a structured, comprehensively referenced review with a clear conceptual architecture; re-check current length, section, and reference expectations on the live guide.
- The article should open by framing the field and the synthesis question, then organize the literature thematically rather than chronologically listing studies.
- Integrative display items (conceptual frameworks, comparison tables, synthesis figures) are central; a summary-points / future-issues treatment is part of the Annual Reviews format.
- Because articles are commissioned, scope and outline are typically agreed with the editorial committee — re-check the commissioning and proposal process on the live guide.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official-source anchors, then cite the current AREAR page you checked. - Search the live site for "Annual Review of Environment and Resources information for authors" and follow the current Annual Reviews version.
- Confirm the invitation/commissioning status and the proposal or topic-suggestion process before preparing a manuscript.
- Re-check length, structure (summary points, future issues), and reference-format expectations.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access/licensing terms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The piece is an authoritative, field-defining synthesis — not primary research or a routine review.
- Invitation/commissioning status (or a proposal pathway) is confirmed with the editorial process.
- Coverage is comprehensive, current, and balanced, integrating across disciplines where needed.
- The review critically evaluates and reconciles evidence and articulates the frontier.
- Summary-points and future-issues elements follow the Annual Reviews format.
- Disclosures and licensing requirements are addressed.
Common desk-reject triggers
- An uninvited primary-research manuscript submitted to an invited-review venue.
- A routine, descriptive literature review with no critical synthesis or agenda-setting value.
- Narrow scope better suited to a specialist review than a field-defining synthesis.
- Imbalanced coverage that advocates the authors' own work or one school of thought.
- Outdated or incomplete coverage missing major recent developments.
- Submitting without regard to the commissioning process and editorial scope agreement.
Re-routing decision
- Critical synthesis of food science specifically →
trends-in-food-science-and-technology. - A review that is primary-data-driven → re-frame as primary research for
environmental-pollution,global-change-biology, or a method venue. - Cleaner-production/sustainability review with applied focus →
journal-of-cleaner-production. - Broad solutions-oriented synthesis for a general audience →
nature-sustainability. - High-profile single-topic review → a Nature Portfolio review article or
science-advancesreview format.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Annual Review of Environment and Resources
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest environment-and-resources topics>
[Synthesis contribution] <the field-defining, agenda-setting integration delivered>
[Invitation status] <commissioned / proposal pathway / uninvited — the key gate>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection — usually "primary research / uninvited">
[Official items to re-check] <commissioning process / length / summary-points format / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:17
