--- name: nature-reviews-earth-and-environment description: Use when targeting Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.) or deciding whether a review-type Earth or environmental science manuscript fits this commissioned-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (nature-reviews-earth-and-environment) ## Journal positioning Nature Reviews Earth & Environment is a Springer Nature review journal that publishes authoritative, synthesis-driven articles spanning the full breadth of Earth and environmental science — solid Earth, surface processes, climate, oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere, biogeochemistry, and human-environment interactions. Its defining character is that it publishes **no primary research**: every article is a review, perspective, or comment, and most substantive content is commissioned by the editors. The journal rewards expert authors who can synthesize a field, adjudicate competing interpretations, identify consensus and open questions, and set a forward agenda — written for a broad cross-disciplinary Earth-science readership and produced to a high editorial and graphical standard. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines, nor the editorial commissioning process. Before proposing, re-check the live author and pre-submission-enquiry instructions on the Nature Reviews Earth & Environment site. ## When to trigger - The author wants to publish a comprehensive, authoritative review or perspective across an Earth or environmental science topic and names Nature Reviews Earth & Environment as the target. - A senior author with field-defining standing is preparing a pre-submission enquiry or responding to a commissioning invitation. - A manuscript synthesizes a field's state of knowledge, reconciles competing models, and sets research priorities — rather than reporting new data. - The author needs to understand the commissioned, no-primary-research model and the enquiry route before investing in a full draft. ## Scope & topic fit - Synthesis reviews across any Earth-system domain: solid Earth and tectonics, geomorphology and surface processes, oceanography, atmospheric science, cryosphere, and biogeochemical cycles. - Climate science and global change: mechanisms, feedbacks, observed and projected change, and the integration of paleo, observational, and model evidence. - Environmental science and human-Earth interactions: pollution, land use, resources, hazards, and sustainability framed as a scientific synthesis. - Methodological and conceptual reviews: how an analytical approach, observing system, or modeling framework has reshaped a subfield. - Perspectives and agenda-setting pieces that frame an emerging question, debate, or research direction. - Cross-cutting integrative topics that connect multiple Earth-science disciplines for a general expert audience. ## Method & evidence bar - The article must synthesize, not report: the contribution is comprehensive coverage, balanced adjudication of the literature, and a clear forward agenda — not new datasets or experiments. - Coverage must be authoritative and current: the relevant literature is represented fairly, recent advances are integrated, and the synthesis reflects genuine command of the field. - Competing interpretations and uncertainties must be presented even-handedly; the article should distinguish established consensus from contested or speculative claims. - Conceptual figures and schematics are central to the format and must convey mechanism or synthesis, not merely reproduce prior figures. - Quantitative syntheses (compiled datasets, meta-level comparisons) must document sources and methods transparently even though the article is not primary research. - Author standing and balance matter: reviews are expected from recognized experts, and conflicts of interest in adjudicating a field must be disclosed. ## Structure & house style - The journal uses commissioned formats — Reviews, Perspectives, and shorter comment/technical pieces — each with editor-set scope, length, and display-item allowances; confirm current specifications on the live site. - A pre-submission enquiry (outline plus author qualifications) is the normal entry route; unsolicited full manuscripts are generally not the expected path. - Reviews open with the significance and scope of the field, develop the synthesis thematically, and close with a Summary and an explicit future-directions / outstanding-questions section. - Display items are professionally redrawn by the Nature Reviews art team; authors supply clear conceptual sketches and must ensure schematics are original or properly permissioned. - Writing is for a broad Earth-science readership: accessible, jargon-controlled, and structured with informative headings rather than dense specialist prose. - Boxes are used for background concepts, definitions, or methodological primers that support the main narrative. ## 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 "Nature Reviews Earth and Environment author guidelines" and follow the current Springer Nature version. - Re-check article-type definitions, length and display-item limits, and the pre-submission enquiry procedure and required materials. - Re-check figure/permissions policy and the art-redrawing workflow; confirm any data-compilation transparency expectations for quantitative syntheses. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, authorship, and AI-use disclosure requirements specific to commissioned reviews. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence — the field synthesized and why an authoritative review is timely and needed now. - [ ] The article reports no primary research and instead delivers balanced, current, comprehensive synthesis. - [ ] Competing interpretations and uncertainties are represented fairly, separating consensus from contested claims. - [ ] A clear future-directions / outstanding-questions section sets a forward agenda. - [ ] Conceptual figures are original or permissioned and convey mechanism or synthesis. - [ ] A pre-submission enquiry with outline and author qualifications is prepared, matching the commissioning route. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A primary-research manuscript reporting new data, experiments, or models — outside the journal's no-primary-research scope. - An unsolicited full review submitted without a pre-submission enquiry where one is expected. - A narrow or partial literature survey that lacks comprehensive coverage, balance, or a forward agenda. - A review by authors without the standing or breadth to adjudicate the field, or with undisclosed conflicts in doing so. - Figures that merely reproduce others' published display items without original conceptual synthesis or permissions. ## Re-routing decision - A longer, more technical and quantitative geophysics review for a specialist readership: `reviews-of-geophysics`. - Primary research with broad cross-disciplinary Earth-science significance: `nature-geoscience`. - A primary atmospheric-science study needing full treatment: `journal-of-geophysical-research-atmospheres`. - An Anthropocene / sustainability-framed synthesis aimed at solutions and futures: `earths-future` or One Earth. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Nature Reviews Earth & Environment [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```