--- 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.md` and `../../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-plants` or `the-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-advances` review. ## Output format ```text [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] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```