Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› laser-and-photonics-reviews
laser-and-photonics-reviews
GitHub用于评估激光与光子学综述或原创研究稿件是否适合Laser & Photonics Reviews期刊。提供选题匹配度、综述深度要求、拒稿启发式规则及写作风格指导，辅助作者进行定位、重构和投稿决策。
Trigger Scenarios
规划撰写激光物理或光子学领域的批判性综述
考虑将具有广泛意义的原创研究投至综述导向型期刊
在Laser & Photonics Reviews与其他侧重原创研究的期刊间做选择
需要查询该期刊对综述与原创研究的录用标准及拒稿规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill laser-and-photonics-reviews -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "laser-and-photonics-reviews",
"description": "Use when targeting Laser & Photonics Reviews or deciding whether a laser-physics \/ photonics review or original-research manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the synthesis-and-significance bar, review and original-research rigor, house style, the review-vs-primary-research routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Laser & Photonics Reviews (laser-and-photonics-reviews)
Journal positioning
Laser & Photonics Reviews is a Wiley journal for laser physics and photonics with a distinct review-leaning identity: it publishes authoritative, critical reviews that synthesize a field and set its agenda, alongside selected high-quality original research of broad photonics interest. The defining expectation differs from a primary-research-first venue: a review must do more than catalogue the literature — it must organize, critique, and frame open problems with the authority of someone shaping the field; an original-research submission must be of review-worthy significance and breadth. A narrow tutorial, an uncritical reference list, or an incremental experimental note is a poor fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Laser & Photonics Reviews author guidelines on the Wiley site.
When to trigger
- The author is planning a critical review of a laser-physics or photonics field and wants a fit/framing and authority check.
- A primary-research result of unusually broad significance is being considered for a review-leaning venue rather than a primary-research-first one.
- The author is choosing between Laser & Photonics Reviews and
optica/light-science-and-applications(primary-research-first), or a tutorial venue. - The author needs the journal's review-vs-original-research bar and its desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Critical reviews of laser physics: ultrafast and high-power lasers, novel gain media, laser dynamics, and frequency-comb science, with a synthesized, agenda-setting view.
- Reviews of nanophotonics, metamaterials, metasurfaces, and structured light that organize a fast-moving field and identify the genuinely open questions.
- Reviews of integrated and quantum photonics, nonlinear and topological photonics, and light–matter interaction with critical comparison across approaches.
- Reviews of optical imaging, sensing, and biophotonics methods where a comparative, critical synthesis advances the field's understanding.
- Selected original-research articles in these areas when the result is broadly significant and review-worthy, not a specialty increment.
- Emerging-topic perspectives that frame a nascent photonics direction with authority and balance.
Method & evidence bar
- For reviews: the contribution is critical synthesis — a coherent organizing framework, honest comparison of competing approaches, and a clear statement of open problems and outlook, not an annotated bibliography.
- Coverage must be balanced and current, citing the primary literature fairly and avoiding self-citation bias or omission of competing work.
- Quantitative comparisons (performance tables, trend figures) should use consistent, fairly stated metrics across the works compared.
- For original research: optical evidence must be quantitative and rigorous — wavelengths, efficiencies, loss, bandwidth, and uncertainty with artifact-excluding controls — and benchmarked against the state of the art.
- Claims (in reviews or research) must be traceable to evidence; speculative outlook must be flagged as such and grounded in the reviewed results.
- Figures, especially redrawn schematics and comparative plots, must be original or properly permissioned and must clarify rather than decorate.
Structure & house style
- The journal publishes Reviews and original Research; match the article type to the contribution and re-check current types and length on the live guide.
- A review is organized around a thesis and a framework, with a strong introduction that states why the synthesis is needed now and a forward-looking outlook section.
- Comparative tables and trend/landscape figures are load-bearing in reviews; they must be consistent, sourced, and genuinely informative.
- Original-research articles follow standard structure with a significance-forward introduction and curated, quantitative main-text figures.
- Supplementary material carries extended tables, derivations, and additional characterization; main display items must stand alone for the core argument.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Wiley anchors, then cite the current Laser & Photonics Reviews author-guidelines page you checked. - Search the live site for "Laser Photonics Reviews author guidelines" and follow the current Wiley submission system.
- Re-check article types (Review vs. Research vs. Perspective), length/figure expectations, and any pre-submission inquiry or proposal step for reviews.
- Confirm figure-reuse permission and copyright requirements for redrawn or reproduced figures.
- Re-check data-availability, open-access options, ORCID, competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure requirements.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- A review offers a critical organizing framework and open-problem statement, not an annotated reference list.
- Coverage is balanced and current, with fair citation of competing work and no self-citation skew.
- Comparative tables/figures use consistent, fairly stated metrics across the works compared.
- Any original-research result is review-worthy in significance and benchmarked against the state of the art.
- Reused or redrawn figures have permissions and clarify rather than decorate.
- The article type (Review / Research / Perspective) matches the contribution and the live limits.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A "review" that is an uncritical literature catalogue with no organizing thesis or outlook.
- Narrow scope or a tutorial-level treatment with no field-shaping synthesis.
- Unbalanced coverage: self-citation bias or omission of competing approaches.
- Original-research submission that is a specialty increment, not review-worthy in breadth.
- Comparative claims built on inconsistent or unfairly stated metrics.
- Reused figures without permission or with no added analytical value.
Re-routing decision
- High-impact concise primary photonics research →
optica. - High-impact photonics with Nature-style significance framing →
light-science-and-applications. - Complete but narrower primary result → Optics Express / Optics Letters / Photonics Research (Optica Publishing Group specialty titles).
- Broadest-significance photonics or review for a general-science audience →
nature-photonicsornature-communications/science-advances. - Review centered on a photonic material system →
advanced-materials/nature-materialsreview formats.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Laser & Photonics Reviews
[Article type] Review / Research / Perspective
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest laser/photonics subtopics>
[Synthesis/significance] <the organizing thesis (review) or review-worthy result (research) in one line>
[Method/evidence] <does the critical synthesis or optical evidence clear the journal's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / proposal step / figure permissions / OA / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if narrow or better framed elsewhere, a matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:56
