Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› nature-biomedical-engineering
nature-biomedical-engineering
GitHub用于评估稿件是否符合Nature Biomedical Engineering期刊标准，检查生物医学意义、转化潜力及验证严谨性，提供框架重构建议与拒稿风险预判。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前评估稿件适配度
将工程成果重构为具有生物医学意义的叙事
在多本期刊间进行选刊决策
了解期刊验证标准与拒稿启发式规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill nature-biomedical-engineering -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "nature-biomedical-engineering",
"description": "Use when targeting Nature Biomedical Engineering or deciding whether a biomedical-engineering \/ health-technology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the Nature-style biomedical-significance and translational bar, validation and evidence rigor, house style, the device-vs-biomaterials-vs-clinical routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Nature Biomedical Engineering (nature-biomedical-engineering)
Journal positioning
Nature Biomedical Engineering is the Nature Portfolio journal for engineering at the interface with biology and medicine: devices, diagnostics, therapeutics, biomaterials, and engineered systems whose advance carries significance for medicine or biology and plausible translational relevance. It selects, in the Nature style, for work that solves a real biomedical problem with rigorous, biologically or clinically meaningful validation — not a clever engineering demonstration with no health significance. The defining demand is that the engineering be motivated by, and validated against, a genuine medical or biological need; a proof-of-concept device with only benchtop data and no biological/clinical evidence 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 Nature Biomedical Engineering submission guidelines on the Nature Portfolio site.
When to trigger
- The author names Nature Biomedical Engineering for a device, diagnostic, therapeutic, or biomaterial result and wants a fit/framing and significance check.
- An engineering result must be re-framed from a benchtop demonstration into a biomedical-significance and translational narrative with biological validation.
- The author is choosing between Nature Biomedical Engineering and
biomaterials,nature-electronics,ieee-transactions-on-biomedical-engineering, ornature-communications. - The author needs the journal's validation bar and its desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Medical devices and engineered systems: implantable, wearable, and point-of-care technologies validated against a clinical or biological endpoint.
- Diagnostics and biosensing: assays, imaging, and sensor platforms with demonstrated sensitivity/specificity on biologically or clinically relevant samples.
- Therapeutics and delivery: engineered drug/gene/cell-delivery systems and device-enabled therapies with mechanism and efficacy evidence in relevant models.
- Biomaterials and tissue engineering when the advance is engineering-driven and tied to a biomedical function and validation, not just material characterization.
- Bioelectronics, neural interfaces, and organ-on-chip / engineered tissue systems with measured biological performance.
- Computational and AI methods for biomedicine when validated on clinically or biologically meaningful data with appropriate endpoints.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution must carry an explicit biomedical-significance argument: the unmet need, the engineered solution, and why it matters for medicine or biology.
- Validation must match the claim's level: cell/tissue, animal-model, or human/clinical evidence with appropriate controls, endpoints, and statistics — benchtop performance alone is insufficient for a biomedical claim.
- Performance must be benchmarked against the relevant clinical or technological state of the art and reported under stated, comparable conditions.
- Biological and animal studies require proper experimental design (randomization, blinding where applicable, adequate N, ethics approval) and honest reporting of limitations.
- Translational claims must be calibrated to the evidence: clearly distinguish proof-of-concept from validated performance, and state remaining barriers.
- Reproducibility and reporting follow Nature-Portfolio expectations, including the reporting summary and relevant reporting guidelines for biomedical studies.
Structure & house style
- Nature-Portfolio article structure with a significance-forward abstract and introduction; re-check current article types and length/format on the live guide.
- The introduction frames the clinical/biological problem and the engineering rationale before technical development, in accessible language.
- Main display items are curated and load-bearing: device/assay performance with statistics, in-vitro/in-vivo results with controls, and clear schematics of the system and its intended use.
- Methods and extended/supplementary material carry full fabrication, assay, model, and statistical detail; the main narrative must stand on the headline figures.
- Ethics, biosafety, and trial-registration statements must be present where applicable.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Nature-Portfolio anchors, then cite the current Nature Biomedical Engineering guidelines page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Biomedical Engineering submission guidelines" and follow the current Nature-Portfolio submission system.
- Re-check article types, length/format expectations, and the abstract requirements.
- Confirm ethics approval, animal-use (e.g., ARRIVE), clinical-trial registration, and relevant reporting-guideline requirements for biomedical studies.
- Confirm data-availability, code-availability, and reporting-summary requirements of Nature Portfolio.
- Re-check 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
- The abstract/introduction states the unmet biomedical need and the translational significance in Nature style.
- Validation matches the claim level (cell / animal / human) with proper controls, endpoints, and statistics.
- Performance is benchmarked against the relevant clinical or technological state of the art.
- Animal/clinical studies report design (N, randomization/blinding), ethics approval, and limitations honestly.
- Translational claims are calibrated to the evidence, distinguishing proof-of-concept from validated performance.
- Data/code availability, reporting summary, and biomedical reporting guidelines are satisfied.
Common desk-reject triggers
- An engineering demonstration with no biomedical significance or no biological/clinical validation.
- Benchtop-only performance presented as a biomedical claim without in-vitro/in-vivo evidence.
- Overstated translational claims unsupported by the level of validation provided.
- Animal or clinical data with inadequate design, missing controls, or absent ethics approval.
- Performance not benchmarked against the relevant clinical or technological standard of care.
- A materials or device paper better suited to a materials or specialty engineering venue.
Re-routing decision
- Biomaterials advance centered on material design with biological evaluation →
biomaterials. - Bioelectronic/device physics advance without strong biomedical validation →
nature-electronics. - Specialty biomedical-engineering methods/instrumentation result →
ieee-transactions-on-biomedical-engineering. - Broad cross-disciplinary significance beyond biomedicine →
nature-communications/science-advances. - Mechanistic biology or therapeutic biology as the core → a dedicated biomedical/biology Nature-Portfolio venue.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Nature Biomedical Engineering
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest biomedical-engineering subtopics>
[Significance statement] <the unmet need + translational claim in one line>
[Validation level] benchtop / in-vitro / in-vivo / human-clinical
[Method/evidence] <does validation + benchmarking clear the biomedical significance + rigor bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / ethics & reporting guidelines / data & code / reporting summary / OA / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if no biomedical validation or better framed elsewhere, a matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:56
