--- name: living-reviews-in-relativity description: Use when targeting Living Reviews in Relativity (LRR) or deciding whether an invited, continuously updated authoritative review in relativity and gravitation fits this very-high-impact Springer venue that publishes no primary research. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Living Reviews in Relativity (living-reviews-in-relativity) ## Journal positioning Living Reviews in Relativity is a Springer journal that publishes invited, continuously updated, authoritative review articles in relativity and gravitation. Its defining character is the "living" model: an article is maintained and revised by its authors as the field evolves, so each review remains the current definitive reference on its topic. LRR is among the highest-impact journals in all of science precisely because each article is a comprehensive, expert, and up-to-date survey that the entire gravitation community relies on. It publishes no primary research; the currency is exhaustive, balanced, pedagogical synthesis with a long maintenance commitment. Readership is the international relativity, gravitation, cosmology, and gravitational-wave community, including graduate students entering the field. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before proposing, re-check the live author and invitation instructions on the Living Reviews in Relativity Springer site. ## When to trigger - The author is considering a comprehensive, maintainable review of a relativity/gravitation topic for Living Reviews in Relativity. - A leading group is asked, or wishes to propose, an authoritative living survey they will commit to updating over years. - An author is choosing between Living Reviews in Relativity, Reviews of Modern Physics, and a topical-review format for a definitive gravitation review. - The author needs LRR's invitation model, comprehensiveness and maintenance expectations, and desk-reject criteria before drafting. ## Scope & topic fit - Comprehensive reviews of established or rapidly developing topics in general relativity and gravitation, written as standing references. - Cosmology and relativistic astrophysics surveys — inflation, dark energy, structure formation, compact objects — at reference depth. - Gravitational-wave science: source modeling, detection methods, data analysis, and tests of GR, maintained against an evolving observational record. - Numerical relativity and approximation methods (post-Newtonian, perturbation theory) as complete methodological references. - Quantum gravity and semiclassical gravity: comprehensive surveys of a program's formalism, results, and open problems. - Mathematical relativity: rigorous, exhaustive treatments of a problem area suitable as a long-lived reference. ## Method & evidence bar - The review must be comprehensive, balanced, and authoritative — the definitive current account of its topic, fairly covering competing approaches and open problems. - Authors must be recognized leaders able to develop the formalism and results in a self-contained, pedagogical way for newcomers and experts alike. - The "living" commitment is part of the bar: authors must be willing and able to maintain and update the article as the field advances. - Claims and results must be accurately attributed with comprehensive, current citation; derivations and figures should be correct, original, and pedagogical. - LRR articles are invited or arise from accepted proposals; a scope-and-outline proposal demonstrating coverage and the maintenance commitment is expected. - No primary research data are reported; any analysis is illustrative and clearly secondary to the review's synthetic, reference purpose. ## Structure & house style - LRR articles use a long, hierarchically structured reference format: extended introduction, full development of formalism, results, applications, and open problems. - Length follows completeness; the article must stand alone so a reader can learn the topic from it without prior specialist background. - Use the journal's LaTeX class with consistent relativistic conventions (signature, units, indices) stated explicitly and maintained throughout. - Figures, tables, and appendices carry derivations, parameter compilations, and worked examples; schematics that clarify formalism are valued. - Versioning is part of the format: revisions are tracked and the article records its update history under the living model. - Citation is exhaustive and kept current at each revision, reflecting the article's standing-reference role. ## 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 for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Living Reviews in Relativity author guidelines" and follow the current Springer version. - Re-check the invitation/proposal process and the requirements and commitment for maintaining a living article over time. - Re-check article structure, length, versioning, and figure/notation conventions for the living format. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, AI-use, and figure-permission disclosure requirements; confirm preprint/update policy. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence — the relativity/gravitation topic this review will become the definitive living reference for. - [ ] The article is comprehensive, balanced, and self-contained, developing the formalism for newcomers and experts. - [ ] The author team can commit to maintaining and updating the article as the field evolves. - [ ] Competing approaches and open problems are fairly and currently covered; citation is exhaustive. - [ ] Figures, derivations, and conventions are original, correct, and consistent throughout. - [ ] A proposal with scope, outline, and the maintenance commitment is prepared, or an invitation is in hand. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A primary-research manuscript submitted as a review; LRR publishes no original research. - A normal-length or one-sided survey lacking the comprehensiveness and balance of a standing reference. - A review with no credible commitment to the ongoing maintenance the living model requires. - A self-promotional account foregrounding the authors' own program and omitting competing approaches. - A full manuscript submitted without a proposal/invitation where the journal's commissioning model requires one. ## Re-routing decision - Definitive, technical, specialist review of a physics topic in the broad Physical Review family: `reviews-of-modern-physics`. - Accessible, cross-disciplinary, editor-commissioned review for the broad physics readership: `nature-reviews-physics`. - Comprehensive, monograph-length one-time topical review across physics: `physics-reports`. - A complete primary-research study in gravitation rather than a review: `classical-and-quantum-gravity` or `physical-review-d`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Living Reviews in Relativity [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```