Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› epsl-topic-selection
epsl-topic-selection
GitHub用于评估研究成果是否符合EPSL期刊要求，聚焦物理、化学及力学过程的前沿性。通过流程测试和决策表，判断是否具备普适性与决定性，避免区域性案例研究被拒，辅助决定投稿或转投其他期刊。
Trigger Scenarios
在EPSL与其他专业或区域期刊间做选择
将数据集提炼为过程级问题
担心论文像单一地区案例研究
考虑拆分项目为多篇论文
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill epsl-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "epsl-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when deciding whether a result fits Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) and how to frame it. EPSL takes concise, high-significance Letters on physical, chemical and mechanical processes of the Earth and planets, and desk-declines regional case studies without process-level insight, so this skill pressure-tests the frontier claim before you invest. It frames the contribution; it does not run analyses."
}
Topic Selection & Fit (epsl-topic-selection)
EPSL's identity is in its name: Letters. The journal wants a short paper whose single result moves a frontier — how planets differentiate, how mantles convect, how faults load, how climate signals enter the rock record — not a competent study whose relevance stops at one basin, one orogen, or one sample suite. Deciding fit early saves months, because the frontier-vs-incremental judgment is made at the editor's desk.
When to trigger
- Choosing between EPSL and a specialist or regional venue
- Sharpening a dataset into a process-level question
- Worried the paper reads as "another case study from region X"
- Tempted to split one project into companion papers (EPSL discourages this)
The process-level test
- Name the process, not the place. Does the result constrain a physical, chemical, or mechanical process of the Earth or another planet — melting, degassing, core formation, slab dehydration, crustal growth, orbital forcing — rather than describing a locality?
- Portability. Would a scientist working on a different continent (or a different planet) change how they interpret their system because of your result?
- Decisiveness. Does the dataset actually discriminate between competing hypotheses, or is it consistent with all of them?
- Letter economy. Can the advance be delivered in a main text near the ~6,500-word cap (re-check on the official site) with a handful of figures? If not, the venue or the scope is wrong.
Fit-versus-redirect decision table
| Your work is... | EPSL fit | Better home |
|---|---|---|
| A locality's geochemistry with no generalizable mechanism | weak | Lithos, Chemical Geology, a regional journal |
| A new constraint that rewrites a global process budget | strong | EPSL Letter |
| Comprehensive method development for one instrument | weak | Chemical Geology, G-cubed, GGR |
| A planetary-interior result from mission or meteorite data | strong | EPSL Letter (planetary scope is explicit) |
| Descriptive stratigraphy or mapping | weak | Basin Research, GSA Bulletin |
| A dense monograph-length argument | wrong format | JGR Solid Earth, GCA |
| A field-wide synthesis you were invited to write | strong | EPSL Frontiers Paper (invitation only) |
Worked micro-example (illustrative — three framings of one detrital-zircon dataset)
The same 600-grain U-Pb dataset from a foreland basin can land three ways (illustrative):
- Off-fit: "Detrital zircon ages from the X Basin constrain its provenance." A locality's sediment-routing story — the textbook EPSL desk decline.
- Borderline: "Age spectra shift at 30 Ma, coincident with the Y collision." A correlation, but a reviewer asks what process was tested.
- On-fit: "Foreland age spectra lag exhumation by ~5 Myr (illustrative), quantifying the transit time of orogenic detritus — so detrital archives worldwide record mountain building with a measurable, correctable delay." Now every basin worker recalibrates their reading of the archive.
The sorting question: finish the sentence "anyone studying [process] on any planet now has to account for…". If you can only finish "anyone studying [my region]…", reframe or redirect.
Anti-patterns
- A regional case study whose conclusions never leave the field area — the pattern EPSL editors decline without review
- "First measurement of X in Y" with no hypothesis the measurement discriminates
- Stretching a specialist method paper to look like a process paper
- Planning two companion manuscripts; EPSL states they are against the spirit of concise Letters
- Choosing EPSL because of prestige while the natural readership is a single sub-community
Output format
【Question】one-sentence process-level question
【Process, not place】the Earth/planetary process constrained
【Portability】who outside the region/sub-field must respond
【Decisiveness】hypotheses discriminated
【Letter economy】deliverable near the word cap? [Y/N]
【Verdict】EPSL Letter / reframe / redirect (venue)
【Next】epsl-literature-positioning
Supplementary resources
../../resources/exemplars/library.md— landmark EPSL papers that cleared the frontier bar../../resources/official-source-map.md— EPSL aims, scope, and article types
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 15:17
