---
name: earth-and-planetary-science-letters
description: Use when targeting Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) or deciding whether a quantitative solid-earth or planetary-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's broad-interest process-science fit, the quantitative geochemistry/geophysics evidence bar, Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Earth and Planetary Science Letters (earth-and-planetary-science-letters)

## Journal positioning

Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL), published by Elsevier, is a broad-interest
journal for **quantitative research on the physical and chemical processes of the Earth and
other planets**. The defining expectation is a process-oriented, quantitatively rigorous
advance — in geochemistry, geophysics, geodynamics, petrology and mineral physics, planetary
processes, or paleoclimate/paleoceanography proxy science — that is significant to a wide
earth- and planetary-science readership rather than to one specialty alone. Despite the
"Letters" name, EPSL favors complete, self-contained articles in which the data, modeling,
and interpretation jointly support a generalizable mechanism; a purely descriptive regional
report, a method note with no process payoff, or a result of interest only to a narrow
sub-field is a weak fit. 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
EPSL / Elsevier author instructions and data policy.

## When to trigger

- The author names EPSL and wants a fit/framing check for a quantitative solid-earth or
  planetary-science paper.
- A regional geochemical or geophysical study must be re-framed into a transferable
  process or mechanism of broad interest.
- The author is choosing between EPSL (longer quantitative process article) and `geology`
  (short, high-immediacy GSA letter).
- The author needs EPSL's broad-interest significance bar and quantitative evidence
  expectations.

## Scope & topic fit

- Geochemistry and isotope geochemistry: tracers, dating, and elemental/isotopic systems
  constraining earth and planetary processes.
- Geophysics and geodynamics: seismology, mantle dynamics, tectonics, gravity/magnetics, and
  lithosphere/deep-earth structure and evolution.
- Petrology, mineral physics, and high-pressure/high-temperature experiments bearing on
  planetary interiors and differentiation.
- Surface and planetary processes: volcanism, impacts, planetary evolution, and comparative
  planetology with quantitative constraints.
- Paleoclimate and paleoceanography proxy records and their calibration, when the
  contribution is a mechanism or a generalizable proxy advance.
- Cross-cutting modeling that links observations to a quantitative earth/planetary process.

## Method & evidence bar

- The contribution must be a **quantitative, generalizable process or mechanism**, not a
  catalogue of measurements from one locality.
- Geochemical/isotopic data require documented analytical methods, standards, reference
  materials, blanks, and full uncertainty propagation.
- Geophysical and modeling results need stated assumptions, resolution/sensitivity tests,
  and evaluation against independent observations.
- Proxy and paleo reconstructions require explicit calibration, age-model treatment, and
  uncertainty, with alternative interpretations considered.
- Claims of broad significance must connect the local result to a wider earth/planetary
  process; mechanism should be argued, not merely correlated.
- Underlying data (and code where used) should be deposited in a FAIR repository or
  supplied as machine-readable tables per Elsevier/research-data policy.

## Structure & house style

- Elsevier article format; EPSL is article-length and self-contained despite the "Letters"
  name — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
- The introduction must state the earth/planetary-science gap and the broad-interest
  contribution, not merely describe a field area or sample set.
- Figures should be quantitative and load-bearing (data with uncertainty, model–data
  comparisons, maps/cross-sections, isotope/phase diagrams) and support the mechanism.
- Methods and a data-availability statement must let a reader reproduce the central result;
  analytical protocols and data tables belong in the paper or supplement.
- Interpretation should be proportionate to the data and explicitly bounded by stated
  uncertainties.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and
  `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Elsevier/EPSL anchors, then cite
  the current EPSL page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Earth and Planetary Science Letters guide for authors" and
  follow the current Elsevier version.
- Re-check article types, abstract/format expectations, and length/figure expectations.
- Confirm the **research-data policy**: deposit data/code in a FAIR repository or provide
  machine-readable data tables, and cite them appropriately.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, CRediT, AI-use disclosure, and
  open-access terms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
  win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] The contribution is a quantitative, generalizable process/mechanism, not a local catalogue.
- [ ] Analytical methods, standards, and full uncertainty propagation are documented.
- [ ] Geophysical/model results include resolution/sensitivity tests and independent evaluation.
- [ ] Proxy/paleo reconstructions state calibration, age models, and alternative interpretations.
- [ ] Broad-interest significance is argued by linking the local result to a wider process.
- [ ] Data (and code) are deposited or supplied machine-readable per the data policy.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A descriptive regional report with no transferable process or broad-interest significance.
- Geochemical data without standards, reference materials, or uncertainty propagation.
- Model or geophysical results lacking sensitivity tests or independent evaluation.
- Proxy/paleo claims without calibration, age-model treatment, or uncertainty.
- Interpretation that outruns the data or ignores plausible alternatives.
- Scope too narrow or too applied for EPSL's broad earth/planetary readership.

## Re-routing decision

- Short, high-immediacy result with broad significance in tight length → `geology`.
- Highest-impact earth-science breakthrough for a general audience → `nature-geoscience`.
- Carbon/nutrient/element cycling and budgets are the core → `global-biogeochemical-cycles`.
- A documented dataset is the deliverable rather than the interpretation → `earth-system-science-data`.
- Short, fast geophysical/geochemical communication → `geophysical-research-letters`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Earth and Planetary Science Letters
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest solid-earth/planetary topics>
[Process contribution] <the quantitative, generalizable mechanism beyond one locality>
[Method/evidence] <do analytics + uncertainty + model/data evaluation clear EPSL's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / data policy / analytical reporting / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```