Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› nature-communications
nature-communications
GitHub用于评估稿件是否适合投递至《Nature Communications》，提供期刊定位、范围匹配、方法证据标准及拒稿启发式规则，辅助作者进行 venue selection 和重构。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定 Nature Communications 为目标期刊
稿件需从高影响力期刊转投至合适的开放获取多学科期刊
需要确认期刊范围边界、报告要求或预投稿评估
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill nature-communications -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "nature-communications",
"description": "Use when targeting Nature Communications (Nat Commun) or deciding whether a multidisciplinary open-access manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Nature Communications (nature-communications)
Journal positioning
Nature Communications is Springer Nature's flagship open-access multidisciplinary journal, publishing across the natural sciences and beyond. Unlike Nature itself, it does not require extraordinary cross-disciplinary significance; instead it targets solid, complete advances of genuine interest to a scientific audience extending beyond a single sub-specialty. The journal's positioning sits between Nature/Science (exceptional global significance) and specialist society journals (narrow field readership): a paper here must matter to a broad community within the relevant discipline and to interested scientists in neighboring fields. The optional transparent peer-review option (making reviews public) reflects the journal's commitment to research integrity and openness.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the Springer Nature / Nature Communications site.
When to trigger
- The author names Nature Communications (or Nat Commun) as the target venue.
- A paper has been considered at Nature or a Nature portfolio journal and needs re-routing to the most natural open-access alternative.
- A solid, complete study needs a high-visibility open-access home that is not field-restrictive.
- The author needs the journal's scope boundaries, reporting requirements, and desk-reject heuristics before submitting.
Scope & topic fit
- All natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, earth/environmental science, materials, engineering, clinical/biomedical) provided the advance is of genuine interest to the discipline and to adjacent fields.
- Integrative or cross-disciplinary studies that do not fit neatly into a single Nature portfolio journal's narrower remit.
- Studies completing an important line of work (definitive mechanism, large-scale validation, comprehensive dataset with biological/physical insight) rather than opening a new research direction.
- Applied advances — new materials, computational methods, biomedical technologies — where broad disciplinary relevance is clear.
- Clinical/translational studies with clear mechanistic underpinning and significance beyond a single therapeutic area.
Method & evidence bar
- The advance must be technically sound and complete: controls, replication, and statistics adequate for publication in the relevant discipline's top specialist journal.
- A Nature-family reporting summary is required for life-sciences papers, covering statistics, randomization, blinding, sample sizes, and replication; equivalent rigor is expected for physical and earth sciences.
- Data and code availability statements are mandatory; deposition in recognized community repositories is expected.
- For human-participant studies: ethics, consent, registration, and relevant reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA) are required.
- The journal values transparent peer review; reviewers' comments and authors' responses may be published alongside the article.
- The bar is methodological completeness, not necessarily novelty of technique: an established method applied rigorously to an important question is acceptable.
Structure & house style
- Nature Communications publishes Articles only (no Letters format); articles have a structured Methods section in the main text, with extended protocols in Supplementary Information.
- The abstract is unstructured and concise, written for a cross-disciplinary audience; the first sentence must state the problem and the last the main finding.
- A brief introductory section (not headed "Introduction" in the published article) frames the field and the gap the paper fills — but does not need to be as broad-audience as a Nature article introduction.
- Extended Data is not a feature of Nature Communications (unlike Nature itself); additional figures and tables go into Supplementary Information.
- Figure count and word limits apply — re-check current limits; the manuscript should be complete but not padded.
- Transparent peer-review opt-in is available; consider whether publishing the review history benefits the manuscript.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Communications author instructions" and follow the current Springer Nature version.
- Re-check article-type requirements (Article is standard), word limit, abstract format, and Supplementary Information allowance.
- Re-check the life-sciences reporting summary (or equivalent for other fields), data/code/materials availability and repository expectations.
- Re-check open-access licensing options (Creative Commons), APC and any institutional OA agreements — do not rely on this skill for current APC amounts.
- Re-check ethics/consent/registration, competing-interests and funding disclosure, and AI-use disclosure.
- Re-check the transparent peer-review opt-in policy and its implications for review confidentiality.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- One sentence explaining why this result matters beyond the immediate sub-specialty — broad discipline audience, not just colleagues.
- The reporting summary is complete; statistics include effect sizes, confidence intervals, and sample sizes, not bare p-values.
- Data and code are deposited or a justified exception is documented before submission.
- The advance is positioned as genuinely complete (not preliminary or a methods note) and the manuscript's scope warrants a multidisciplinary venue.
- Ethics/consent/registration documentation is ready for any human-participant or vertebrate-animal work.
- The decision on transparent peer review has been made and is consistent with collaborator preferences.
Common desk-reject triggers
- The advance is discipline-specific with no clear reason to appeal to neighboring fields — better placed in a top specialist journal.
- The reporting summary is incomplete or missing for a life-sciences paper; this is a routine early rejection trigger.
- The paper is preliminary or focused on a single technique without an advance in understanding.
- Framing is too narrow or too technical; the abstract and introduction read for specialists only.
- The manuscript is really a data descriptor or methods paper without a scientific discovery component (those have dedicated venues).
Re-routing decision
- Exceptional cross-disciplinary significance →
natureorscience. - The paper fits a specific Nature portfolio journal (genetics, chemistry, physics, materials, medicine) → route to that venue instead; Nature Communications is not a catch-all for rejected portfolio submissions.
- AAAS open-access equivalent →
science-advances. - Multidisciplinary with a China-flagship positioning and broad scope →
national-science-revieworthe-innovation. - Solid but discipline-specific → the top specialty journal in the relevant field.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Nature Communications
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is the advance complete and rigorous by discipline standards, with cross-field interest?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <word limit / reporting summary / data-code deposition / OA license / ethics / transparent peer review>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:03
