Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› est-literature-positioning
est-literature-positioning
GitHub用于在ES&T期刊投稿时定位论文贡献，通过跨学科文献对比明确知识空白。适用于引言写作、综述构建或回应审稿人质疑，确保引用权威来源并精准区分研究创新点。
Trigger Scenarios
撰写引言或知识空白部分
构建批判性综述或观点文章
被审稿人指出忽略相关文献或缺乏新颖性
决定引用哪些相邻领域的文献
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill est-literature-positioning -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "est-literature-positioning",
"description": "Use when positioning an Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) manuscript against prior work across environmental chemistry, engineering, toxicology, and policy. ES&T is multidisciplinary, so the paper must engage the right literatures and state the knowledge gap it closes. It frames the gap and citations; it does not fabricate references."
}
Literature Positioning (est-literature-positioning)
ES&T draws a multidisciplinary readership, and editors decline work that does not engage the relevant literature or that re-derives what is already known. This skill positions the contribution: what is known, what is missing, and why this paper closes the gap for a real environmental problem.
When to trigger
- Writing the introduction or the "knowledge gap" framing
- Building a Critical Review or Perspective that must map a whole field
- A reviewer said the work "ignores relevant literature" or "is not novel"
- Deciding which adjacent fields (chemistry, engineering, tox, policy) to cite
How to position for ES&T
- State the gap as a process question. Frame what is unknown about fate, transport, transformation, exposure, toxicity, treatment, or management — not just "few studies have looked."
- Engage across sub-fields. Cite the analytical, mechanistic, engineering, and (where relevant) policy literatures the broad ES&T audience expects, including prior ES&T/ES&T Letters work.
- Differentiate, don't dismiss. Say precisely how your concentrations, matrices, mechanisms, or scale advance beyond the closest prior studies.
- Use authoritative sources. Prefer peer-reviewed work, agency datasets (EPA, NIST), and primary measurements over secondary summaries; use ACS numbered citation style.
- For Reviews/Perspectives: organize around an analytical framework, surface contradictions, and identify the open questions — synthesis, not annotated bibliography.
Which literatures a multidisciplinary referee panel expects you to engage
ES&T sends a paper to ~three reviewers who often span sub-fields. A gap framed only in one literature reads as naive to the others. Map your claim to the adjacent bodies of work before drafting:
| If your contribution is about... | You must also engage... | Reviewer who flags the omission |
|---|---|---|
| A new occurrence/measurement | the analytical-method and fate literature | the environmental chemist |
| A treatment/removal process | the engineering and mass-transfer literature | the process engineer |
| An exposure or effect | the toxicology / dose–response literature | the eco/health toxicologist |
| A regulatory or LCA implication | the policy / sustainability literature | the policy-interface reviewer |
| A transport/transformation model | prior model formulations and field validation | the modeler |
Worked micro-example (illustrative — positioning an emissions-inventory analysis)
Suppose the paper re-estimates methane emissions from a basin's oil-and-gas infrastructure using aircraft data. A weak introduction cites only prior inventories and claims "few studies have top-down constrained this basin." A reviewer reads that as incremental. The ES&T-grade positioning (illustrative):
- Known: bottom-up inventories systematically underestimate basin emissions; prior top-down studies disagree by a factor of ~2 (illustrative) and have not reconciled the discrepancy.
- Gap (as a process question): the attribution of the excess — which source category and which operational state — is unresolved, so mitigation targeting is blind.
- This paper closes it by: pairing aircraft fluxes with facility-level activity data to attribute the excess to a small fraction of super-emitting sites, changing where regulators should act.
The move that lifts it past desk-screen: the gap is a mechanism/attribution question with a policy consequence, engaging the inventory, atmospheric-measurement, and regulatory literatures at once — not a "we add another number" claim.
Referee-pushback patterns and the venue-specific fix
- "Novelty is incremental — this is another occurrence dataset." → Reframe the gap as a process, attribution, or exposure question the data resolve; differentiate explicitly from the closest prior ES&T studies by matrix, scale, or mechanism.
- "Ignores relevant literature." → Add the adjacent sub-field (often engineering or tox) the multidisciplinary panel expects; cite prior ES&T/ES&T Letters work directly.
- "'First study' claim is not supported." → Soften to a specific, defensible advance or remove it.
Anti-patterns
- A wall of citations with no articulated gap
- Ignoring an obvious adjacent literature (e.g., citing chemistry but not the engineering or tox work)
- "First study to…" claims that a quick search would falsify
- Citing only your own group; missing key prior ES&T papers reviewers will know
- A "review" that summarizes papers in sequence instead of synthesizing them
Output format
【Known】2–3 lines on the state of the art
【Gap】the specific process/exposure/treatment question left open
【This paper closes it by】mechanism / scale / matrix / concentration advance
【Literatures engaged】chemistry / engineering / tox / policy (which apply)
【Citation style】ACS numbered, primary sources
【Next】est-study-design
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— reference databases and managers; ACS style../../resources/official-source-map.md— ES&T scope and article-type expectations
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:12
