Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› biomaterials
biomaterials
GitHub用于评估稿件是否符合Biomaterials期刊要求，强调材料表征与生物学评价的双重严谨性及机制关联。辅助判断投稿适宜性、重构论文框架及对比其他期刊，提供拒稿启发式建议。
Trigger Scenarios
作者提及Biomaterials并寻求适配性或双重严谨性检查
需重构材料或生物类论文以建立机制联系
在Biomaterials与其他顶级期刊间进行选择
需要了解该期刊的生物学评价标准及Desk-reject规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill biomaterials -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "biomaterials",
"description": "Use when targeting Biomaterials or deciding whether a biomaterials manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the dual materials-characterization-plus-biological-evaluation bar, mechanism rigor, house style, the Biomaterials-vs-NBME-vs-functional-materials routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Biomaterials (biomaterials)
Journal positioning
Biomaterials is an Elsevier journal for materials designed for biological and medical application: tissue engineering and regenerative scaffolds, drug and gene delivery, implants and coatings, and biointerfaces. Its defining demand is dual rigor — a submission must combine thorough materials design and characterization with genuine biological evaluation (in vitro and/or in vivo), and the two must be tied together by a mechanism: how the material's properties produce the biological outcome. A strong materials paper carrying only a token cell-viability assay, or a biology study using an off-the-shelf material with no materials advance, 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 Biomaterials Guide for Authors on the Elsevier site.
When to trigger
- The author names Biomaterials for a tissue-engineering, delivery, implant, or biointerface manuscript and wants a fit/framing and dual-rigor check.
- A materials paper must be re-framed to add — and mechanistically connect — meaningful biological evaluation, or a biology paper must show a real materials advance.
- The author is choosing between Biomaterials,
nature-biomedical-engineering, and the functional-materials family (advanced-materials,nature-materials). - The author needs the journal's biological-evaluation bar and its desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: scaffolds, hydrogels, and engineered matrices where material design drives a demonstrated cell/tissue response.
- Drug, gene, and cell delivery: carriers and depots characterized as materials and evaluated for loading, release, targeting, and biological efficacy.
- Implants, devices, and coatings: degradable and load-bearing materials with characterized properties and biological/host response.
- Biointerfaces and surface engineering: surface chemistry/topography linked mechanistically to protein adsorption, cell adhesion, or antifouling behavior.
- Immunomodulatory, antibacterial, and bioactive materials where the biological effect is traced to defined material properties.
- Nano/micro-structured biomaterials when the materials advance and the biological outcome are jointly established, not one without the other.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution must establish a material-property-to-biological-outcome mechanism, not merely report that a new material is biocompatible.
- Materials characterization must be thorough and appropriate: composition, structure, mechanical and degradation behavior, and release/loading where relevant, with quantitative, reproducible data.
- Biological evaluation must be meaningful and matched to the claim: appropriate cell types, relevant assays beyond a single viability test, and in-vivo validation where the application demands it — with controls, adequate N, and statistics.
- Properties and biological performance must be benchmarked against the correct material/clinical baseline, not a strawman.
- In-vivo work requires proper design (controls, randomization/blinding where applicable, ethics approval) and honest reporting of limitations.
- Reproducibility: material synthesis/processing, characterization protocols, and biological methods reported in enough detail to reproduce both the material and the measured response.
Structure & house style
- Standard research-article structure (introduction, materials/methods, results, discussion); Biomaterials publishes full-length archival articles — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
- The introduction motivates the biomedical problem and the materials-design rationale together; the discussion is where the structure–property–bioresponse mechanism is argued explicitly.
- Figures are load-bearing: materials characterization with quantification, and biological data (imaging, assays, in-vivo outcomes) with controls, error bars, and reported N and statistics.
- Supplementary material carries extended characterization and full biological protocols; main-text figures must support the central mechanism on their own.
- Ethics and biosafety statements must be present where animal or human-derived material is used.
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 Biomaterials Guide for Authors page you checked. - Search the live site for "Biomaterials guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
- Re-check article types, length/figure expectations, and the data-availability policy.
- Confirm ethics approval and animal-use (e.g., ARRIVE) reporting and any biosafety requirements for in-vitro/in-vivo work.
- Confirm graphical-abstract and highlights requirements if applicable.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure requirements.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The paper establishes a material-property-to-biological-outcome mechanism, not just "biocompatible."
- Materials characterization is thorough and quantitative (structure, mechanics, degradation, release as relevant).
- Biological evaluation goes beyond a token viability assay, with appropriate cells/models, controls, N, and statistics.
- In-vivo work (where the claim needs it) has proper design and ethics approval.
- Properties and bioresponse are benchmarked against the correct material/clinical baseline.
- Synthesis, characterization, and biological protocols are reported in reproducible detail.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A materials paper with a token cell-viability assay and no biological insight or mechanism.
- A biology study using an off-the-shelf material with no materials design or characterization advance.
- "New biomaterial, it's biocompatible" with no structure–property–bioresponse mechanism.
- Biological data with no controls, inadequate N, missing statistics, or absent ethics approval.
- Performance benchmarked against a strawman rather than the correct material/clinical baseline.
- Application-driven device paper where neither the materials nor the biology is advanced.
Re-routing decision
- Engineering-/device-led biomedical advance with clinical translation focus →
nature-biomedical-engineering. - Conceptual functional-materials advance with the materials science as the core →
advanced-materials/nature-materials. - Specialty biomedical-engineering instrumentation/methods →
ieee-transactions-on-biomedical-engineering. - Broad cross-disciplinary significance →
nature-communications/science-advances. - Predominantly mechanistic biology with material as a tool → a dedicated cell/biology venue.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Biomaterials
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest biomaterials subtopics>
[Mechanism] <the material-property-to-biological-outcome claim in one line>
[Evaluation level] in-vitro / in-vivo / both
[Method/evidence] <do materials characterization + biological evaluation jointly clear the dual-rigor + mechanism bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / ethics & animal reporting / data policy / graphical abstract / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if single-sided or better framed elsewhere, a matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:54
