Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› nature-electronics
nature-electronics
GitHub用于评估电子器件、电路或系统稿件是否符合Nature Electronics期刊要求。提供选题定位、意义重构、方法严谨性检查及拒稿启发式规则，辅助作者判断投稿适宜性与提升文章显著性叙事。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定投稿Nature Electronics并需进行匹配度与框架检查
需要将指标改进型报告重构为具有领域推进意义的Nature风格叙事
在Nature Electronics与其他期刊（如nature-materials/communications或IEEE期刊）间进行选择
需要了解该期刊的意义门槛及Desk-reject启发式规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill nature-electronics -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "nature-electronics",
"description": "Use when targeting Nature Electronics or deciding whether an electronic-devices \/ circuits \/ systems manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the Nature-style significance and field-advancing bar, device-and-system measurement rigor, house style, the device-vs-materials-vs-systems routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Nature Electronics (nature-electronics)
Journal positioning
Nature Electronics is the Nature Portfolio journal covering the science and engineering of electronics — from materials-level device physics through circuits to integrated systems and their applications. It selects for broad significance and a field-advancing result framed in the Nature style: a conceptual breakthrough, a new device or material with a clear performance or functional leap, or a system that demonstrates a genuinely new capability. An incremental device that improves a metric without a conceptual or capability advance, or a process tweak with no broader consequence, 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 Electronics submission guidelines on the Nature Portfolio site.
When to trigger
- The author names Nature Electronics for an electronic-devices, circuits, or systems result and wants a fit/framing and significance check.
- A device or systems result must be re-framed from a metric-improvement report into a Nature-style, field-advancing significance narrative.
- The author is choosing between Nature Electronics and
nature-materials/nature-communications, or an IEEE device/circuits transactions venue. - The author needs Nature Electronics' significance bar and its desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Device physics and emerging devices: transistors, memristors, 2D-material and organic/flexible electronics, spintronic and neuromorphic devices, when a new mechanism or capability is shown.
- Integrated circuits and computing hardware: low-power, in-memory, analog, and domain-specific architectures with a demonstrated, broadly significant advance.
- Sensors, flexible/wearable and bioelectronic systems where a new device concept enables a capability not previously achievable.
- Power, RF, photonic-electronic, and quantum-electronic devices and systems with a field-moving result rather than parameter optimization.
- Fabrication and integration advances (heterogeneous integration, new process schemes) when they unlock new device or system function, not just yield.
- System-level demonstrations that bridge from device physics to a working integrated capability with measured performance.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution must carry an explicit significance argument: what is conceptually or functionally new and why it advances electronics broadly.
- Device and system metrics must be quantitative and rigorously measured: report conditions, statistics across multiple devices, variability/yield where relevant, and uncertainty — not a single best-device datapoint.
- Performance and capability claims must be benchmarked against the current state of the art under comparable, clearly stated conditions.
- Reliability, stability, and scalability/manufacturability should be addressed honestly where they bear on the claimed advance, not deferred entirely.
- Theory, modeling, and simulation must be tied to measured devices or make tested predictions; simulation-only device claims rarely clear the bar.
- Reproducibility and reporting follow Nature-Portfolio expectations: methods, data availability, and statistics sufficient to reproduce key results.
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 establishes the broad-significance gap and the stakes for electronics before the technical development, in accessible language.
- Main display items are curated and load-bearing: device characteristics with statistics, benchmark comparisons, and clear schematics of the device/system concept.
- Methods and extended/supplementary material carry full fabrication, measurement, and device-statistics detail; the main narrative must stand on the headline figures.
- Multi-device statistics and variability data are expected in support, not optional afterthoughts.
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 Electronics guidelines page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Electronics submission guidelines" and follow the current Nature-Portfolio submission system.
- Re-check article types (Article, Letter/short formats), length/format expectations, and the abstract requirements.
- 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 broad significance and the field-advancing claim in Nature style.
- The advance is conceptual or capability-level, not an incremental metric improvement.
- Device/system metrics include multi-device statistics, variability, and uncertainty — not a single best device.
- Performance is benchmarked against the state of the art under comparable conditions.
- Reliability/scalability/manufacturability are addressed where they bear on the claim.
- Any theory/simulation is anchored to measured devices or makes a tested prediction.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Incremental device with a metric improvement but no conceptual or capability leap.
- Single best-device result with no multi-device statistics or variability data.
- Performance claims not benchmarked, or compared to a weak/non-comparable reference.
- Process or fabrication tweak with improved yield but no new device/system function.
- Simulation-only device claim with no fabricated, measured device.
- Specialty-scoped engineering result better suited to a focused device/circuits journal.
Re-routing decision
- Advance driven primarily by a new electronic material →
nature-materials/advanced-materials. - Broad cross-disciplinary significance beyond electronics →
nature-communications/science-advances. - Photonic-electronic or integrated-photonics emphasis →
nature-photonics/light-science-and-applications/optica. - Specialty device, circuit, or process result → an IEEE device/circuits/electron-devices transactions venue.
- Bioelectronic system with biomedical significance and validation →
nature-biomedical-engineering.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Nature Electronics
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest device/circuit/system subtopics>
[Significance statement] <the Nature-style field-advancing claim in one line>
[Method/evidence] <do device/system metrics + statistics + benchmarking clear the significance + rigor bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / data & code availability / reporting summary / OA / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if incremental or better framed elsewhere, a matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:56
