Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› annual-review-of-plant-biology
annual-review-of-plant-biology
GitHub用于评估文章是否符合《Annual Review of Plant Biology》的邀请制综述定位。涵盖选题范围、综合平衡性要求、风格规范及拒稿风险，辅助作者决定投稿或向编辑部提议选题，不替代官方指南。
触发场景
考虑向该期刊投稿植物生物学领域综述
需要确认邀请制综述的定位与期望
准备向编辑委员会提议综述选题
在综合性综述期刊与原始研究期刊间做选择
查询导致直接拒稿的常见原因
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill annual-review-of-plant-biology -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "annual-review-of-plant-biology",
"description": "Use when targeting Annual Review of Plant Biology or deciding whether a plant-biology review proposal fits this invited-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the authoritative-synthesis and invited-article bar, evidence and balance expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Annual Review of Plant Biology (annual-review-of-plant-biology)
Journal positioning
Annual Review of Plant Biology, published by Annual Reviews, publishes authoritative, comprehensive review articles that synthesize the state of a plant-biology field for a broad scientific readership. It is an invited-review venue: articles are normally commissioned by the editorial committee, and the contribution is a balanced, forward-looking synthesis of a literature — not new primary data. The single largest mismatch is submitting unsolicited primary research, or a narrow mini-review that reads like a grant introduction rather than a definitive field synthesis. Authors with a compelling topic typically propose it to the editors rather than submit a finished manuscript unrequested. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidance. Before proceeding, re-check the live Annual Reviews/AR Plant Biology guidance and the commissioning process.
When to trigger
- The author is considering Annual Review of Plant Biology for a synthesis of a plant-biology field and needs to confirm the invited-review expectation.
- A scientist wants to propose a review topic to the editorial committee and needs the scoping/framing bar.
- The author is choosing between an Annual Reviews synthesis and a research/review article in a primary plant journal.
- The author needs the venue's desk-reject heuristics (above all, unsolicited primary data).
Scope & topic fit
- Comprehensive syntheses across plant molecular, cellular, developmental, physiological, genetic, evolutionary, and ecological biology.
- Integrative themes that connect mechanism to higher-level plant function or to applications in agriculture and the environment.
- Emerging areas where a definitive, organizing synthesis would orient a field.
- Methodological and conceptual frameworks that have reshaped how plant biologists work.
- Historically grounded perspectives that frame current debates and open questions.
- Cross-cutting topics linking plant biology to genomics, microbiomes, climate, or breeding.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is synthesis quality and balance, not new experiments: comprehensive coverage, fair treatment of competing views, and a clear conceptual organization.
- Claims must be grounded in the cited primary literature; the review should weigh evidence, not merely list it, and flag where evidence is contested or thin.
- The article should add an interpretive layer — a framework, reconciliation, or forward agenda — beyond an annotated bibliography.
- Any figures/tables should be original syntheses (schematics, comparative tables) that clarify the field, with permissions handled for reused items.
- Currency matters: the synthesis should reflect the present state and name the open questions that will drive the next several years.
Structure & house style
- Annual Reviews house format: a scoped, authoritative review with an abstract, structured sections, and a forward-looking outlook; re-check current length and format on the live guide.
- Writing targets a broad scientific audience: accessible framing of specialist material, defined terms, and an organizing narrative rather than a methods-heavy account.
- Display items are conceptual and integrative (pathway/process schematics, comparative syntheses), not primary data figures.
- Disclosure of potential bias and balanced citation are part of the house expectation.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors, then cite the current Annual Review of Plant Biology page you checked. - Search the live site for "Annual Review of Plant Biology information for authors" and follow the current Annual Reviews version, including how topics are commissioned/proposed.
- Confirm whether the article is invited; if not, identify the route to propose a topic to the editorial committee.
- Re-check length, section, figure/table, and reference-style expectations.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, AI-use disclosure, copyright/ permissions, and open-access terms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The article is (or is being proposed as) an invited synthesis, not unsolicited primary research.
- Coverage is comprehensive and competing views are treated fairly.
- The review adds an interpretive framework or forward agenda beyond a literature list.
- Figures/tables are original conceptual syntheses with permissions handled.
- The synthesis reflects current understanding and names the key open questions.
- Length, format, references, and disclosures match the live Annual Reviews guide.
Common desk-reject triggers
- Submitting unsolicited primary research data to an invited-review venue.
- A narrow mini-review that reads like a grant introduction rather than a field synthesis.
- Unbalanced coverage that promotes the authors' own work and omits competing evidence.
- An annotated bibliography with no organizing framework or forward outlook.
- An outdated synthesis that misses the recent literature defining the field.
Re-routing decision
- New primary plant data with broad significance →
nature-plantsorthe-plant-cell. - Integrative ecology/physiology primary research →
new-phytologist. - Mechanistic molecular primary research →
the-plant-journal. - Sustainability-framed agronomy review or meta-analysis →
agronomy-for-sustainable-development. - Broad cross-discipline review/perspective → a Nature Portfolio Perspective or
science-advancesreview.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Annual Review of Plant Biology
[Invited?] Invited / Proposing topic / Unsolicited (flag risk)
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest plant-biology synthesis themes>
[Synthesis value] <the organizing framework / forward agenda the review adds>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <commissioning route / length / figures / permissions / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if primary data or out of scope, a better-matched venue>
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:17
