Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› nature-physics
nature-physics
GitHub用于评估物理手稿是否适合投稿《Nature Physics》，提供期刊定位、选题匹配度、证据标准及拒稿启发式分析，辅助作者判断是否追求概念性突破及跨领域影响力。
Trigger Scenarios
目标投稿Nature Physics或评估稿件适配度
在Nature Physics与其他物理期刊间犹豫
需了解编辑筛选文化与框架预期
稿件被直接退回需重新评估去向
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill nature-physics -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "nature-physics",
"description": "Use when targeting Nature Physics (Nat Phys) or deciding whether a physics manuscript fits this conceptual-advance, broad-audience Nature-family venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Nature Physics (nature-physics)
Journal positioning
Nature Physics is the Springer Nature flagship for physics across all subfields, publishing results that represent a genuine conceptual advance in physics and can be communicated compellingly to the broad physics community. It operates within the Nature family's editorial culture: heavy triage before peer review, a premium on framing the advance for non-specialists within the discipline, and an expectation that the result will shift how physicists think about a problem rather than merely adding incremental precision. The readership is physicists across all subfields who rely on Nature Physics to identify the most important cross-cutting developments.
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 site and the Nature Physics editorial submission system.
When to trigger
- The author is targeting Nature Physics for a result framed as a cross-subfield conceptual advance.
- A manuscript has a strong physics result but the author is unsure whether to target Nature Physics versus
physical-review-letters,physical-review-x, or a subfield journal. - The author needs to understand Nature Physics's editorial-triage culture and framing expectations before writing the introduction.
- A paper has been returned without review and the author needs to assess re-routing.
Scope & topic fit
- Fundamental physics discoveries that reframe understanding across condensed matter, quantum physics, photonics, particle/nuclear, astrophysics, or statistical/biological physics when communicable to the broad physics community.
- New physical phenomena (topological, quantum, emergent) with conceptual implications beyond the system or material studied.
- Precision experiments or observations that resolve a fundamental question or open new research directions for a wide physics audience.
- Theory or computation that introduces a new physical concept, universality class, or symmetry principle with demonstrated or predictable cross-subfield relevance.
- Articles, Reviews, and Perspectives on developing areas where synthesis illuminates a conceptual frontier for physicists outside the specialty — Reviews and Perspectives may be solicited.
Method & evidence bar
- The result must demonstrate a conceptual advance, not only improved precision or a larger dataset; editors ask what the new physical understanding is, not just what was measured.
- Experimental claims require complete characterization: reproducibility data, systematic uncertainties, and controls that rule out artefact interpretations, given that Nature Physics reviewers will include skeptical non-specialists.
- Theoretical work must make contact with experiment or observation, or make clear, falsifiable predictions; purely formal results without physical consequence rarely clear the bar.
- Supporting data and materials availability are expected to comply with the current Nature Portfolio research data policy; deposition in recognised repositories is increasingly required.
- Statistical reporting must meet current Nature Portfolio standards; for data-intensive physics, the statistical methods and their assumptions should be explicit.
Structure & house style
- The manuscript is a full Article (not a Letter in the PRL sense); Nature Physics articles are typically self-contained but concise.
- The abstract must be unstructured, jargon-minimal, and communicate the conceptual advance to a physicist from any subfield within the current abstract length limit.
- An introductory paragraph or two must frame the broader physics question before describing the experiment or theory; editors and referees judge fit from the abstract and introduction alone in triage.
- Methods are typically placed at the end of the article or in an online-only Methods section; the main text develops the physics narrative.
- Extended Data and Supplementary Information carry detailed protocols, additional characterization, and reproducibility documentation.
- Nature Physics also publishes shorter News & Views (commissioned), Reviews, and Perspectives — distinguish these from research Articles in the submission system.
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 Physics author guidelines" and follow the current Springer Nature version.
- Re-check article-type options (Article, Letter legacy, Review, Perspective), current word/figure limits for each type, and abstract format.
- Re-check Nature Portfolio data availability, code availability, and reporting summary requirements; these are mandatory and must accompany the manuscript.
- Re-check Nature Portfolio competing-interests, ethics, and AI-use disclosure policies.
- Confirm the preprint policy (Nature Physics permits arXiv preprints; re-check current embargo rules for embargoed work).
- Confirm open-access options and APC if choosing OA publication; hybrid or full-OA routes exist.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The conceptual advance can be stated in one sentence to a physicist outside the subfield, without technical jargon.
- The abstract and introduction frame the physics question and advance, not the experimental apparatus or the author's prior work.
- The result is complete and self-contained; a companion longer paper is not needed to make the physics case.
- Extended Data, Supplementary Information, data/code availability, and the reporting summary are all prepared.
- The framing positions the result against the current conceptual frontier, not merely the previous measurement.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Results of significant subfield quality but without a conceptual advance communicable to physicists outside the specialty; these are redirected without review.
- An introduction or abstract written in dense subfield notation or jargon that Nature Physics editors cannot assess in triage.
- Incremental improvements to a previously published result without a new physical picture emerging.
- Missing data availability statement, reporting summary, or competing-interests disclosure — Nature Portfolio requires these before editorial consideration.
- Methodology papers or technique demonstrations without a physics discovery framing.
Re-routing decision
If the physics result is significant but primarily of interest within one subfield: condensed matter / materials → physical-review-b (archival) or nature-materials (if property-function advance is central); quantum information → prx-quantum; photonics/optics → nature-photonics. If the result is Letter-length, complete, and cross-subfield → physical-review-letters. If it needs more development space and the cross-subfield case is strong → physical-review-x. For authoritative review synthesis → reviews-of-modern-physics.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Nature Physics
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <does the result represent a conceptual advance communicable to the broad physics community?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / data availability / reporting summary / abstract format / preprint policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:03
