Soil Biology & Biochemistry (soil-biology-and-biochemistry)

Journal positioning

Soil Biology & Biochemistry (SBB), published by Elsevier, is the leading journal for the mechanisms of soil biological and biochemical processes: soil organic matter dynamics, microbial ecology and function, nutrient cycling, soil carbon, extracellular enzymes, and the biogeochemical processes that soil biota drive. Its defining expectation is mechanistic process understanding — evidence about how soil organisms and reactions govern a process, not a descriptive inventory of what is present. A soil survey, a descriptive community census with no process link, or a management trial whose contribution is an agronomic outcome rather than a soil mechanism is a poor fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live SBB author guidance.

When to trigger

• The author names SBB and wants a fit/framing check for a soil-process or soil-microbial paper.
• A microbial-community or soil-carbon dataset must be re-framed around the process mechanism it explains rather than a description of community composition.
• The author is choosing between SBB, agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment (agroecosystem environmental outcomes), and a broader biogeochemistry venue.
• The author needs SBB's desk-reject heuristics and a credible alternative route.

Scope & topic fit

• Soil organic matter formation, stabilization, and decomposition, and the controls on soil carbon persistence.
• Soil microbial ecology and function: community assembly, activity, and the links between diversity and process rates.
• Nutrient cycling and transformations (C, N, P, S) and the microbial/enzymatic mechanisms behind them.
• Extracellular enzymes, microbial physiology, and carbon/nutrient-use efficiency as process drivers.
• Soil fauna, the soil microbiome, and biotic interactions where they mechanistically shape soil processes.
• Rhizosphere and root–soil–microbe interactions framed around process mechanism.

Method & evidence bar

• The central claim must be a soil-process mechanism: evidence that links soil biota or reactions to a measured process rate or pool change, not co-occurrence or description.
• Microbial-community data must be tied to function (rates, isotopes, enzyme activity, gene expression), not presented as composition alone; '-omics' needs process-level interpretation.
• Incubation and field studies need adequate replication, appropriate controls, and statistics that respect spatial/temporal structure; isotope and tracer work needs proper mass balance.
• Process rates and pools require validated methods, reported detection limits/uncertainty, and reproducible analytical protocols.
• Sequence data must be deposited with accessions; data and code underpinning the process conclusions should be available per Elsevier policy.

Structure & house style

• Standard IMRaD; the introduction must state the soil-process question and the mechanistic gap, not just the study site or community of interest.
• Methods must document soil properties, sampling design, and analytical/incubation protocols in reproducible detail.
• Figures should make the mechanism visible (rate–driver relationships, isotopic partitioning, enzyme/process links) with variability and controls shown.
• A data-availability statement, sequence accessions, and complete soil metadata are expected; supplementary material carries analytical detail.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors, then cite the current Soil Biology & Biochemistry page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Soil Biology & Biochemistry guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
• Re-check article types, structure, word/figure expectations, and abstract format.
• Confirm sequence-data deposition/accession requirements and the data-availability policy.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• The central contribution is a soil-process mechanism, not a descriptive inventory.
• Microbial-community data are tied to function (rates, isotopes, enzymes, expression).
• Replication, controls, and statistics respect spatial/temporal structure; mass balance holds.
• Process rates/pools use validated methods with reported uncertainty and detection limits.
• Sequence accessions and a data-availability statement are prepared.
• Soil metadata and analytical protocols are documented for reproducibility.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A descriptive soil survey or community census with no process mechanism.
• Microbial composition reported with no link to a measured process or function.
• '-omics' catalogues with no process-level interpretation or validation.
• Under-replicated or pseudoreplicated incubations/field studies presented as general.
• A management trial whose real contribution is an agronomic outcome, not a soil mechanism.

Re-routing decision

• Agroecosystem environmental outcomes (GHG, nutrient losses, biodiversity) at field-landscape scale → agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment.
• Crop yield/agronomy and resource-use efficiency is the core → field-crops-research.
• Sustainability-framed soil/cropping-system synthesis or meta-analysis → agronomy-for-sustainable-development.
• Large-scale climate/global-change soil-carbon process dominant → global-change-biology.
• Broad, headline biogeochemistry significance → nature-communications or a global-biogeochemistry venue.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Soil Biology & Biochemistry
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest soil-process topics>
[Process mechanism] <the soil biota/reaction → process-rate/pool link being established>
[Method/evidence] <does function-linkage + replication + method rigor clear SBB's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / sequence deposition / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>