Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science
progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science
GitHub用于评估能量与燃烧科学领域的综述稿件是否适合投稿至Progress in Energy and Combustion Science期刊。该工具协助判断稿件是否符合权威综述定位，区分主研与综述，提供重构建议及拒稿启发式规则，辅助作者进行venue选择与内容调整。
Trigger Scenarios
评估能量或燃烧领域综合综述的投稿适配度
将主研论文重构为批判性综述或重新路由
在综述期刊与主研期刊间做选择决策
需要了解全面性及拒稿风险时
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science",
"description": "Use when targeting Progress in Energy and Combustion Science or deciding whether an energy\/combustion review manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's review-only fit, the critical-synthesis-and-authority bar, comprehensiveness rigor, house style, the review-vs-primary-research routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science)
Journal positioning
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (Elsevier) is a review journal: it publishes authoritative, comprehensive, critical reviews in energy and combustion science, not primary research. Its articles are long, scholarly syntheses that map a field, weigh conflicting evidence, expose open problems, and set the agenda for future work — frequently invited or proposed in advance. The single most common misfit is a primary-research manuscript (new experiments or one model) submitted as if it were a review; another is a shallow literature survey that catalogs papers without critical judgment. A submission succeeds only if its authors can credibly claim field-level authority and deliver a genuinely critical, integrative account. 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 Guide for Authors on the Elsevier site and any pre-submission/proposal expectations.
When to trigger
- The author wants to place a comprehensive review of an energy or combustion topic and is assessing whether it meets this venue's authority and depth bar.
- A manuscript must be re-framed away from primary research toward a critical, agenda-setting synthesis — or re-routed because it is in fact primary research.
- The author is deciding between this review venue and a primary-research energy/ combustion journal, or between it and a shorter perspective/mini-review elsewhere.
- The author needs the comprehensiveness and critical-synthesis bar and the venue's desk-reject heuristics.
Scope & topic fit
- Combustion science: chemical kinetics and mechanisms, turbulent and laminar combustion, ignition, pollutant formation, soot, and combustion diagnostics.
- Energy conversion and utilization: fuels (conventional, bio-, hydrogen, e-fuels), engines, gas turbines, and combustion-based power systems.
- Fundamentals bridging chemistry, transport, and thermodynamics as they govern energy and combustion processes.
- Emerging energy-and-combustion topics where a critical state-of-the-field synthesis is timely and absent from the literature.
- Cross-cutting reviews that integrate modeling, experiment, and diagnostics into a coherent, judgment-bearing picture.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is a critical synthesis: the review must compare, reconcile, and judge the literature — not merely summarize it paper by paper.
- Comprehensiveness is expected within a well-defined scope: the major bodies of work, including conflicting results, must be covered and weighed against evidence.
- The review must articulate what is established, what is contested, and what is open, and ideally propose a roadmap or unifying framework.
- Authority matters: the treatment must reflect deep command of the field's methods, data, and controversies, with balanced rather than self-promotional citation.
- Figures and tables should synthesize (comparative tables, mechanism maps, trend plots) rather than reproduce single-study results uncritically.
Structure & house style
- Long-form review structure: a framing introduction, a logically organized body that builds an argument across sub-topics, and a forward-looking outlook — re-check current article-type and length expectations on the live guide.
- The scope and boundaries of the review must be stated explicitly and defended; the narrative must have a thesis, not just coverage.
- Comparative tables and synthesis figures are central; original schematics that integrate disparate findings strengthen the contribution.
- A reference base commensurate with a comprehensive review is expected; citation must be balanced and current, with clear attribution.
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 Progress in Energy and Combustion Science Guide for Authors page you checked. - Search the live site for "Progress in Energy and Combustion Science guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
- Re-check whether a pre-submission proposal or invitation is expected and the article types and length expectations for reviews.
- Confirm figure-permission/reuse requirements, since reviews reproduce or adapt published figures.
- Re-check 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 manuscript is a critical, integrative review — not primary research or a paper-by-paper survey.
- The scope is explicitly defined and the review has a clear thesis or unifying framework.
- Conflicting results are covered and weighed against evidence, not omitted.
- The outlook articulates what is established, contested, and open, with a forward agenda.
- Synthesis tables/figures integrate the literature rather than reproducing single studies.
- Any pre-submission/proposal expectation and figure-reuse permissions are addressed.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Primary-research manuscript (new experiments/one model) dressed as a review.
- Shallow literature survey that lists studies without critical comparison or judgment.
- Narrow scope or self-citation-heavy treatment that does not reflect field authority.
- Missing major or conflicting bodies of work within the claimed scope.
- No forward-looking synthesis: a summary that ends without identifying open problems.
- Out-of-scope topic with only a thin energy/combustion connection.
Re-routing decision
- Primary combustion/energy-conversion experiments or modeling → a primary-research combustion/energy journal.
- Systems-level energy modeling and assessment as primary research →
applied-energy. - Device-level electrochemical power primary research →
journal-of-power-sources. - Energy-materials mechanism primary research →
energy-storage-materials. - Broad, highest-profile energy synthesis/perspective →
nature-energyorjoule(different format/selectivity; re-check).
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest energy/combustion subtopics>
[Review type] critical synthesis / agenda-setting review (NOT primary research)
[Authority/scope] <is field-level authority + defined scope credible?>
[Synthesis bar] <does it weigh conflicting evidence and set a forward agenda?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal/invitation / length / figure permissions / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if primary research or out of scope, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:56
