--- name: nature-reviews-materials description: Use when targeting Nature Reviews Materials (Nat Rev Mater) or deciding whether a materials review proposal fits this commissioned, conceptually demanding review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Nature Reviews Materials (nature-reviews-materials) ## Journal positioning Nature Reviews Materials is a Springer Nature review journal that publishes authoritative, accessible reviews across the whole of materials science and engineering — from soft and biological materials to electronic, energy, structural, and quantum materials. Its defining character is that content is commissioned and editor-developed: authors are leaders in their field, and articles are shaped in collaboration with a professional in-house team. The journal publishes no primary research; its currency is conceptual synthesis at a high bar — articles must frame a field, distill unifying design principles, weigh competing approaches, and use original figures as pedagogy so that a scientist outside the subfield can follow the state and trajectory of an area. Readership spans materials scientists, chemists, physicists, and engineers seeking an expert's map. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official guidelines. Before any contact, re-check the live author and proposal information on the Nature Reviews Materials site. ## When to trigger - An author wants to propose or has been invited to write a field-defining review across any area of materials science and engineering. - A leading researcher is choosing between Nature Reviews Materials and a primary-research or applied-materials venue and needs to understand the commissioned, conceptual, accessibility-first model. - A team holds primary results and is mistakenly framing a "review"; the trigger is to redirect to a primary-research venue. - An author needs the journal's expectations on conceptual framing, design-principle synthesis, and figure-as-pedagogy before approaching editors. ## Scope & topic fit - Conceptual syntheses that organize an active materials subfield into a coherent framework of structure–property–processing–performance relationships and design principles. - Emerging and cross-cutting areas where an expert map clarifies direction: quantum and topological materials, 2D materials, metamaterials, soft and living materials, batteries and energy materials, biomaterials. - Manufacturing- and processing-centered reviews when the conceptual link from process to property is the unifying thread. - Theory-, simulation-, and data-driven materials discovery (high-throughput, machine learning) reviewed for its conceptual implications. - Interfaces with chemistry, physics, and biology where a materials perspective integrates scattered literature. - Roadmap- and Perspective-style pieces that argue where a materials field should go, when commissioned as such. ## Method & evidence bar - The article must deliver a conceptual organizing framework — design principles, mechanisms, or unifying trade-offs — not an exhaustive literature dump; the central framing should be statable in one or two sentences. - Coverage must be balanced and authoritative across competing materials platforms and schools, with the authors recognized as field leaders. - Figures are load-bearing pedagogy — original, schematic, and conceptual; reused or decorative figures are insufficient, and permissions for adapted figures must be cleared. - Claims about the state of the field must be evidence-anchored to the primary literature, with citations chosen for authority and representativeness rather than completeness. - No primary research data are presented; any new analysis is illustrative and clearly framed as the authors' synthesis. - Accessibility is a hard bar: a scientist outside the subfield must follow the argument, the property–performance logic, and the figures. ## Structure & house style - Articles are commissioned; the normal route is a pre-submission proposal (synopsis, outline, key figures, author expertise) developed with an editor before a full draft. - House style favors a narrative arc through clear conceptual sections, Boxes for technical asides or definitions, and a forward-looking outlook section. - Display items are central: original schematic figures and concept diagrams designed with the journal's art team; figure ideas should be sketched early. - Writing is expository and accessible — minimal jargon, defined terms, explicit signposting — teaching peers across disciplines rather than arguing a primary result. - Length and reference counts are substantial but bounded; re-check current limits and online-only Supplementary Information use. - An abstract and often a key-points summary orient the reader; subheadings must convey the conceptual structure at a glance. ## 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 Nature Reviews Materials page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Reviews Materials for authors" and follow the current Springer Nature version, including the pre-submission proposal process. - Re-check article-type definitions (Review, Perspective, Roadmap, Comment) and current word, display-item, and reference limits for each. - Re-check figure-permission, original-artwork, and Supplementary Information requirements; confirm the editorial-collaboration and revision workflow. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure requirements; confirm authorship and conflict policies for commissioned content. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence — the conceptual framework or design principle this review establishes and why a broad materials readership needs it now. - [ ] The content is synthesis, not primary research, and presents no new experimental data as a result. - [ ] The author team is recognized in the area and can weigh competing materials platforms fairly. - [ ] Key figures are conceived as original pedagogy, with adapted-figure permissions identifiable. - [ ] A pre-submission proposal / outline is prepared rather than an unsolicited full manuscript. - [ ] The argument is accessible across disciplines, with terms defined and structure signposted. ## Common desk-reject triggers - An unsolicited full manuscript sent without a proposal, where the journal's model is commissioning and editor collaboration. - A primary-research paper disguised as a review, or a piece whose core contribution is new experimental data. - An exhaustive, undifferentiated literature catalogue with no organizing concept, design principle, or perspective. - A narrow, specialist write-up inaccessible to the broad readership, or one with no original conceptual figures. - Imbalanced coverage that promotes the authors' own platform or a single approach without fair treatment of alternatives. ## Re-routing decision - Primary research presenting new materials results: `nature-materials`. - Applied materials advance — devices, processing, or performance breakthroughs in functional materials: `advanced-materials`. - Authoritative review elsewhere in the Nature Reviews family when the core is chemistry or physics rather than materials: `nature-reviews-chemistry`. - Forward-looking opinion shorter than a full review: a Perspective or Comment within the Nature Reviews family, by arrangement with the editors. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Nature Reviews Materials [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```