Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› epsl-review-process
epsl-review-process
GitHub解析EPSL期刊审稿流程，涵盖编辑初审与专家复审两阶段。用于投稿前压力测试、解读决定信、预判审稿人背景及应对评论争议，帮助作者针对拒稿原因优化稿件，不直接联系编辑。
Trigger Scenarios
投稿前对照初审和审稿标准进行压力测试
解读编辑决定信并规划回复策略
预判审稿人所属的子领域
考虑发表评论或回应已发表论文的评论
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill epsl-review-process -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "epsl-review-process",
"description": "Use when you need to understand how Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) evaluates a manuscript — subject-editor desk screening against the frontier bar, expert review typically drawn from the sub-fields the paper joins, and editor-led decisions. It sets expectations and hardens the paper before submission; it does not contact editors."
}
Review Process (epsl-review-process)
EPSL's review is run by working scientists: a team of editors, each handling manuscripts near their own specialty, screening first for whether the paper is a genuine Letter — concise, decisive, of broad Earth-and-planets interest — before sending it to expert referees. Knowing the two-gate structure (desk screen on significance and fit, then technical review on rigor) lets you harden the paper against each gate in advance. Volatile details (editor names, reviewer counts, timelines) drift; re-check them on the official site.
When to trigger
- Pre-submission stress test against the desk-screen and reviewer axes
- Interpreting a decision letter and planning the response strategy
- Anticipating which sub-fields the referees will come from
- Considering a Comment on a published EPSL paper, or facing one
How EPSL review works
- Subject-editor triage. The handling editor — a researcher in the paper's area — judges frontier significance, letters fit, and scope. Regional case studies without process-level insight, method reports, and incremental additions to settled questions are declined here, without external review.
- Referees drawn from the paper's intersection. A manuscript joining geochemistry and geodynamics is typically reviewed by at least one specialist from each side; each referee audits their own layer (traceability and statistics vs physical plausibility and resolution).
- Editor-led decisions. The handling editor weighs the reviews and decides — reject, major or minor revision, or acceptance; reviews advise, the editor adjudicates.
- Comments and Replies. EPSL carries formal Comment/Reply exchanges on published papers; they are held to the same evidence standard as Letters and are not a venue for tone.
- Integrity screening. Plagiarism checks, authorship and competing-interest declarations, and Elsevier's publishing-ethics framework apply at submission.
Desk-decline grounds and where they get fixed upstream
| Desk-decline ground | What the editor read | Fix it in |
|---|---|---|
| Regional study, no process takeaway | place-name title, local conclusions | epsl-topic-selection |
| Incremental / does not move the frontier | gap framed as "more data needed" | epsl-literature-positioning |
| Not letters-shaped | sprawling scope, companion manuscript | epsl-workflow, epsl-writing-style |
| Better suited to a specialist journal | method-community audience only | epsl-topic-selection |
| Over length / format non-compliant | cap exceeded, missing statements | epsl-submission |
What each referee audits
| Referee | Reads first | Rejects on |
|---|---|---|
| The analyst (geochem/geochron) | standards, blanks, σ-definitions, MSWD | untraceable numbers |
| The physicist (geophys/geodyn) | resolution tests, force balance, scaling | interpreting artifacts |
| The recorder (strat/paleo) | age control, correlation logic | rates without anchors |
| The planetary scientist | data provenance (mission/archive), assumed parameters | overreach beyond sensitivity |
Worked micro-example (illustrative — forecasting the decision on the slab-fluid paper)
Stress-testing the B-isotope + tomography Letter before submission (illustrative reasoning):
- Desk axes: process-level (how slabs lose water) — passes; letters-shaped (one claim, 6,100 words) — passes; portability argued in the abstract — passes.
- Geochemist referee: will probe the δ11B external reproducibility and crustal-assimilation screen — both pre-empted in the supplement.
- Seismologist referee: will ask whether the conduit survives the resolution test — the inset in Figure 1c exists precisely for this.
- Realistic outcome: major revision asking for an alternative-fluid-pathway discussion and one more sensitivity case. Budget for it; "major revision" at a high-bar venue is an invitation to convince, not a near-accept.
The discipline: walk the desk axes and both referees' audits yourself, in writing, before the editor does.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a locally-framed paper and hoping the editor generalizes it for you
- Preparing for one referee's specialty when the paper straddles two
- Reading "major revision" as acceptance-with-chores
- Responding to a Comment with rhetoric instead of data
- Assuming timelines, reviewer counts, or editor assignments that the official page does not state
Output format
【Desk screen】process-level? letters-shaped? portable? [Y/N each]
【Predicted referees】sub-fields + what each will audit
【Pre-empted objections】list, with manuscript location
【Weakest layer】named honestly + mitigation
【Realistic outcome】reject / major / minor
【Next】epsl-submission (or epsl-revision-and-rebuttal on a decision)
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— editorial structure and policy links (re-check volatile items)../../resources/exemplars/library.md— papers that survived this gauntlet, by sub-field
Version History
- 9f86f09 Current 2026-07-19 15:17
