Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› environment-international
environment-international
GitHub用于评估稿件是否符合Environment International期刊要求，提供选题定位、暴露-健康证据标准、拒稿启发式规则及与其他期刊的对比建议。
Trigger Scenarios
作者询问稿件是否适合该期刊或需调整框架
需将暴露研究重构为人群健康相关结论
在Environment International与EHP或其他环境科学期刊间做选择
需要了解该刊的证据门槛和拒稿原因
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill environment-international -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "environment-international",
"description": "Use when targeting Environment International or deciding whether an environmental-exposure\/health manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the population-relevant exposure-health evidence bar, exposome\/contaminant expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Environment International (environment-international)
Journal positioning
Environment International is the Elsevier journal for environmental science with a strong human-health and exposure emphasis — environmental exposures and contaminants, the exposome, environmental epidemiology, and human health-risk assessment across air, water, soil, food, and the built environment. Its defining expectation is population-relevant exposure–health evidence: a study that connects a measured or modeled environmental exposure to a human health outcome or risk with rigorous quantification. Compared with Environmental Health Perspectives, the scope is broader environmental-science-plus-health and method-forward; a purely environmental-monitoring paper with no health relevance, or a clinical study with no environmental exposure, is a weak fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Environment International submission guidance.
When to trigger
- The author names Environment International and wants a fit/framing check for an environmental-exposure or environmental-health paper.
- An exposure-assessment, contaminant, or exposome study must be re-framed toward its population-relevant health implication.
- The author is deciding between Environment International and Environmental Health Perspectives, or between it and a pure environmental-science venue.
- The author needs this journal's exposure–health evidence bar and desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Human exposure assessment: external and internal (biomonitoring) exposure to chemical, physical, and biological agents across multiple environmental media.
- Exposome and mixtures: high-dimensional exposure characterization and combined-exposure effects on health.
- Environmental epidemiology linking exposures to health outcomes across the life course, including susceptible populations.
- Emerging and legacy contaminants (e.g., PFAS, metals, air pollutants, EDCs) with measured exposure and a health or risk endpoint.
- Health-risk assessment, exposure modeling, and method development for exposure science when the population-health relevance is explicit.
- Mechanistic toxicology or in-vitro/animal work when clearly anchored to human exposure and risk.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution must connect a defensible exposure measure to a human health outcome or risk, not report exposure or environmental concentrations alone.
- Epidemiological designs need appropriate confounding control, exposure-misclassification handling, sensitivity analyses, and attention to bias and causal interpretation.
- Exposure assessment needs validated analytical methods, QA/QC, detection-limit handling, and representativeness of the sampled population.
- Mixtures/exposome analyses must use suitable high-dimensional methods and guard against false discovery and overfitting.
- Modeling and risk assessment must state assumptions, parameter sources, and uncertainty; dose-response and extrapolation choices must be justified.
- Reporting should follow recognized epidemiology/exposure guidelines and report effect sizes with uncertainty, not just significance.
Structure & house style
- Standard research-article format; the journal also publishes reviews and shorter formats — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
- The introduction must establish the exposure–health question and population relevance, not only the environmental-chemistry novelty.
- Figures and tables should be quantitative and health-anchored (exposure–response curves, effect estimates with confidence intervals, exposure distributions), with full models in SI.
- Methods, data, and code should support reproducibility; follow the journal's data-availability expectations and human-subjects/ethics reporting.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Environment International page you checked. - Search the live site for "Environment International guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
- Re-check article types, length, abstract, and graphical-abstract/highlights requirements.
- Confirm reporting-guideline expectations (e.g., epidemiology checklists) and ethics/consent statements for human data.
- Re-check data-availability, code, and any biomonitoring/cohort data-sharing expectations.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- A defensible exposure measure is linked to a human health outcome or quantified risk.
- Epidemiological confounding, exposure misclassification, and bias are addressed with sensitivity analyses.
- Exposure analytics have validated methods, QA/QC, and a representative sample.
- Mixture/exposome analyses control false discovery and overfitting.
- Effect sizes are reported with uncertainty and a justified causal interpretation.
- Ethics, reporting guidelines, and data-availability requirements are met.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Environmental monitoring or concentration data with no human-health or risk endpoint.
- A clinical/health study with no characterized environmental exposure.
- Epidemiology with uncontrolled confounding or unaddressed exposure misclassification.
- Exposome/mixture screening with no correction for multiplicity or no validation.
- Risk-assessment or modeling with opaque assumptions and no uncertainty analysis.
- Scope mismatch: a pure ecotoxicology or pure environmental-chemistry paper without the human-health link.
Re-routing decision
- Public-health/policy framing and NIEHS-style remit dominant →
environmental-health-perspectives. - Contaminant sources/fate/ecological impact rather than human health →
environmental-pollution. - Dietary-contaminant chemistry is the contribution →
food-chemistry. - Broad sustainability/solutions framing →
nature-sustainability. - Major population-health clinical-epidemiology scope →
the-lancetor a dedicated epidemiology journal.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Environment International
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest exposure/health topics>
[Exposure–health link] <the exposure measure and the human outcome/risk it connects to>
[Method/evidence] <does confounding control + exposure rigor + uncertainty clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / epidemiology reporting / ethics / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:17
