Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› the-innovation
the-innovation
GitHub用于评估稿件是否适合投递至《The Innovation》期刊，提供跨学科突破成果的匹配度分析、框架重构建议及拒稿风险预判。适用于目标期刊为该刊、需在多本综合性期刊中选择或需理解其跨学科定位的场景。
触发场景
作者指定《The Innovation》为目标投稿期刊
稿件具有跨学科特征，需在《The Innovation》与其他综合期刊间做选择
中国团队寻求Cell Press合作的高影响力发表平台
需要了解该刊跨学科身份与快速出版文化
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill the-innovation -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "the-innovation",
"description": "Use when targeting The Innovation or deciding whether a cross-disciplinary breakthrough manuscript fits this Cell Press-partnered broad-science journal. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics."
}
The Innovation (the-innovation)
Journal positioning
The Innovation is a broad-science flagship journal operating in partnership with Cell Press, publishing cross-disciplinary breakthroughs in natural science, engineering, and applied science. It has a global scope but a notably strong association with China-based research communities, serving as a fast, high-visibility venue for transformative findings that do not fit neatly within a single discipline. The editorial culture rewards bold, cross-boundary work: papers that sit at the intersection of fields (materials + medicine, AI + biology, physics + environment) and whose significance is legible to scientists across those fields. Speed to publication and a commitment to scientific impact — rather than disciplinary orthodoxy — are defining features of The Innovation's identity.
This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on The Innovation's site and the submission system.
When to trigger
- The author names The Innovation as the target venue.
- A manuscript genuinely crosses disciplinary boundaries and the author is choosing between The Innovation,
national-science-review,nature-communications, andscience-advances. - A China-based research team has a breakthrough result they want in a Cell Press-partnered high-visibility venue.
- The author needs to understand The Innovation's distinctive cross-disciplinary identity and fast-track culture versus more established multidisciplinary journals.
Scope & topic fit
- Genuine cross-disciplinary breakthroughs: the paper must span at least two recognizable fields and its significance must be legible in both — not a single-field paper with a thin cross-disciplinary sentence.
- Materials science and energy: new functional materials, energy storage/conversion breakthroughs, sustainable materials with demonstrated application potential.
- Biomedical engineering and translational science: diagnostics, therapeutics, delivery systems where physics/chemistry/biology convergence produces an advance.
- AI, computing, and data science applied to scientific problems: new capabilities demonstrated on scientifically significant problems, not just benchmark performance.
- Environmental science and sustainability: solutions-oriented findings at the interface of natural and engineering systems.
- Emerging fields and paradigm-opening results that lack an obvious home in traditional discipline-specific journals.
Method & evidence bar
- The advance must be technically rigorous; Cell Press-family standards apply: controls, quantitative validation, reproducibility, and complete methods are expected.
- Cross-disciplinary claims must be validated from both (or all) relevant disciplinary perspectives — a materials claim must meet materials-science standards AND the biological or engineering claim must meet those standards independently.
- Data and code availability: statements are required; community-standard deposition is expected where applicable.
- For studies involving human participants: ethics, consent, registration, and reporting-guideline compliance are required.
- The method bar is excellence-within-discipline plus cross-disciplinary integration: it is not a venue for preliminary findings that happen to span fields.
Structure & house style
- The Innovation publishes Articles and may offer shorter communication formats (re-check current types); the article must be self-contained.
- The abstract and introduction must make the cross-disciplinary significance explicit and immediately legible: a physicist reading a materials-medicine paper and a biologist reading an AI-environment paper must each understand within the first two paragraphs why this matters to them.
- Figures should illustrate the cross-field connection visually — schematic overviews and integrative figures are rewarded here more than in single-discipline journals.
- Cell Press-family house norms apply to references, figure formatting, and supplemental information organization; re-check The Innovation's specific adaptation of these norms.
- The manuscript should be concise: cross-disciplinary scope does not justify padding; the core advance must drive the narrative.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.mdand../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "The Innovation author instructions" or "The Innovation submission guidelines" and follow the current version.
- Re-check article types, word and figure limits, abstract format, and supplemental information policy.
- Re-check data/code/materials availability requirements and deposition expectations.
- Re-check ethics/consent/registration requirements and reporting-guideline compliance expectations.
- Re-check open-access licensing and APC policy — do not rely on this skill for current fee information.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding disclosure, and AI-use disclosure requirements.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
- The manuscript spans at least two distinct disciplines and the abstract makes both disciplinary contributions explicit.
- Every major claim is validated by the standards of the discipline in which it is made — not just claimed cross-disciplinarily.
- The introduction requires no more than general scientific literacy to understand the problem and why it matters.
- Figures include an integrative panel or schematic that shows how the cross-disciplinary components connect.
- Data/code deposition is confirmed; ethics/consent/registration documentation is ready for any human or animal work.
- The cover letter names specific scientific communities beyond the immediate field who will benefit from this advance.
Common desk-reject triggers
- The cross-disciplinary claim is superficial: the paper is fundamentally a single-discipline study with a cross-disciplinary motivation sentence in the introduction.
- The advance does not rise to the significance level expected of a high-visibility flagship journal — solid incremental work in two fields simultaneously is not the same as a cross-disciplinary breakthrough.
- Validation is adequate for one disciplinary component but weak for the other — reviewers from both fields will evaluate their respective components rigorously.
- The abstract and introduction are specialist-only, failing to communicate the advance to non-specialist readers from the other field.
- Missing or inadequate data availability, ethics documentation, or reporting-guideline compliance.
Re-routing decision
- Exceptional cross-disciplinary significance at Nature/Science level →
natureorscience. - Broad but primarily within one discipline (life sciences) →
nature-communications,science-advances, orpnas. - China-flagship broad science, review or primary research, OUP/CAS →
national-science-review. - Cell/molecular biology with mechanistic depth and full validation →
cellormolecular-cell. - Sustainability or energy focus in Cell Press family →
jouleorone-earth.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] The Innovation
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is the cross-disciplinary claim validated to the standards of each constituent field?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / word/figure limit / data-code / OA license / ethics / cross-disciplinary validation>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 13:06
