Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› journal-of-hydrology
journal-of-hydrology
GitHub用于评估水文论文是否适合投稿至《Journal of Hydrology》的辅助工具。涵盖期刊定位、范围匹配度检查、方法证据标准、数据可复现性要求及拒稿启发式规则，帮助作者进行稿件定位、框架调整或与其他期刊对比决策。
触发场景
作者指定投稿 Journal of Hydrology 并需进行适配性或框架检查
区域或应用型水文研究需提炼可推广见解以避免被拒为单纯案例研究
在 Journal of Hydrology、Water Resources Research 及其他地球/气候期刊间进行选择
需要了解该期刊广泛的范围推理和数据可复现性期望
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill journal-of-hydrology -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "journal-of-hydrology",
"description": "Use when targeting Journal of Hydrology or deciding whether a hydrology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the broad process\/observational\/applied-hydrology contribution bar, data-and-reproducibility expectations, Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
Journal of Hydrology (journal-of-hydrology)
Journal positioning
Journal of Hydrology is Elsevier's broad-scope outlet for the hydrological sciences, covering surface and subsurface hydrology, hydrometeorology, water quality, hydrological modeling, and observational hydrology across catchment to continental scales. Its defining expectation is a sound, useful hydrological advance — a process insight, a method, a dataset-driven analysis, or an applied result that improves how hydrologic systems are understood, predicted, or managed; it deliberately accommodates process, observational, methodological, and applied studies more broadly than AGU's Water Resources Research, whose bar is fundamental water-science novelty. A well-executed regional study can fit here if it yields transferable lessons or clear hydrological insight, even without a wholly new theory. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live Journal of Hydrology author instructions and data policy.
When to trigger
- The author names Journal of Hydrology and wants a fit/framing check for a hydrology paper.
- A regional or applied hydrologic study needs to be positioned for its transferable insight rather than rejected as "just a case study."
- The author is choosing between Journal of Hydrology,
water-resources-research, and a broader earth/climate venue. - The author needs the journal's breadth-of-scope reasoning and reproducibility expectations.
Scope & topic fit
- Surface-water hydrology: rainfall–runoff, streamflow generation, floods, droughts, and catchment water balance across scales.
- Subsurface and groundwater hydrology: recharge, aquifer dynamics, soil-water and vadose-zone processes, surface–groundwater interaction.
- Hydrometeorology and snow/ice hydrology: precipitation, evapotranspiration, snowmelt, and land-surface water and energy partitioning.
- Hydrological modeling, forecasting, remote sensing, and data assimilation, including large-sample and benchmarking studies.
- Water quality, solute and sediment transport, and ecohydrology with a clear hydrological process or management linkage.
- Applied and regional hydrology — water-resources assessment, human impacts, land-use and climate-change effects — when the analysis yields transferable insight.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution must be a defensible hydrological advance: useful process insight, method, dataset analysis, or applied finding, with stated transferability or limitations.
- Models must be calibrated and evaluated with appropriate skill metrics, independent validation, and uncertainty treatment; equifinality and parameter sensitivity should be addressed.
- Observational and field studies need credible monitoring design, instrument/error characterization, and reproducible data processing.
- Claims of improvement require comparison against a sensible baseline model or method, not a weak strawman; large-sample or multi-catchment evidence strengthens generality.
- A purely regional result should be explicit about what generalizes and what does not, so reviewers can judge the broader hydrological value.
- Data underpinning the analysis should be available or clearly sourced, per Elsevier and journal data policy.
Structure & house style
- Standard Elsevier research-article structure (Introduction, Study area/Data, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions); re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
- The introduction must state the hydrological gap and the specific advance, not just describe a basin or list prior work.
- Figures should be quantitative and load-bearing (hydrographs, maps, skill/benchmark comparisons, uncertainty bands); study-area maps must support, not replace, analysis.
- A highlights list and a structured or graphical abstract are commonly expected — re-check current requirements on the live guide.
- Methods and data-availability statements must let a reader reproduce the central result.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Journal of Hydrology page you checked. - Search the live site for "Journal of Hydrology guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
- Re-check article types, highlights/abstract format, and word/figure expectations.
- Confirm the data-availability/research-data policy and any repository or data-statement requirements.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure, and open-access options.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The advance is a clear hydrological insight, method, or applied finding, not an undigested data dump.
- Models are evaluated with skill metrics, independent validation, and uncertainty treatment.
- Observational/field design, error characterization, and processing are reproducible.
- Improvement is shown against a sensible baseline, and transferability/limitations are stated.
- Highlights, abstract format, and data-availability statement meet current requirements.
- Figures are quantitative and load-bearing, not dominated by descriptive study-area maps.
Common desk-reject triggers
- A regional case study presented with no transferable insight, generalization, or stated lessons.
- Model results with no calibration/validation, skill metrics, or uncertainty analysis.
- Observational study with weak monitoring design or no error characterization.
- Re-analysis of standard data with a routine method and no new hydrological understanding.
- Missing data-availability statement or non-compliance with the research-data policy.
- Scope mismatch: a pure water-engineering design, climatology, or chemistry paper with no hydrological process or management linkage.
Re-routing decision
- Fundamental, strongly novel water-science theory/methodology →
water-resources-research. - Land–atmosphere water/energy/flux process focus →
agricultural-and-forest-meteorology. - Carbon/nutrient biogeochemical cycling dominant →
global-biogeochemical-cycles. - Climate-dynamics or large-scale climate framing dominant →
journal-of-climate. - Aquatic-ecology / freshwater-ecosystem emphasis →
limnology-and-oceanography.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Journal of Hydrology
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest hydrology topics>
[Hydrological advance] <the process/method/applied insight and its transferability>
[Method/evidence] <does calibration/validation + uncertainty + data availability clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / highlights / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:17
