brycewang-stanford EPSL Workflow Router (epsl-workflow)
The dispatcher for an EPSL submission. EPSL is Elsevier's flagship letters journal for solid-Earth and planetary science (founded 1966, ISSN 0012-821X): it wants a concise Letter carrying one decisive, process-level advance about the physical, chemical or mechanical workings of the Earth or another planet. The router's first job is therefore double: locate the stage, and confirm the result is a Letter — not a data report, not a regional case study, not two papers stapled together.
When to trigger
- Starting an EPSL manuscript and unsure where to begin
- Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
- Unsure whether the work is letters-shaped or belongs at a specialist journal
- Returning with a decision letter (route to
epsl-revision-and-rebuttal)
First question: is this a Letter?
| Situation | Verdict | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| One decisive advance on a process of Earth/planetary interiors, surfaces, or atmospheres | Letter — proceed | pipeline below |
| Solid dataset, insight local to one region or one analyte | not yet letters-shaped | epsl-topic-selection to reframe or redirect |
| Two intertwined results needing two manuscripts | companion papers are discouraged at EPSL | merge to one Letter or split venues |
| Field-wide synthesis | Frontiers Paper — by editor invitation only | do not self-select; query first |
| Dispute with a published EPSL paper | Comment / Reply | epsl-review-process for etiquette |
Length is policed: the main text (introduction through conclusions) is capped near 6,500 words — re-check the exact figure on the official Guide for Authors before trusting it.
Routing map (stage → skill)
Does the idea clear the frontier bar? → epsl-topic-selection
Which literatures must the gap engage? → epsl-literature-positioning
Will the sampling/analytical plan hold? → epsl-study-design
Are uncertainties fully propagated? → epsl-data-analysis
Do the exhibits work for four sub-fields? → epsl-figures-and-tables
Data deposited FAIR, methods transparent? → epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility
Does it read like a Letter? → epsl-writing-style
Pitching the handling editor? → epsl-cover-letter
How will it be judged? → epsl-review-process
Ready for Editorial Manager? → epsl-submission
Decision letter arrived? → epsl-revision-and-rebuttal
Default order
topic-selection → literature-positioning → study-design → data-analysis → figures-and-tables → reporting-and-reproducibility → writing-style → cover-letter → review-process → submission → revision-and-rebuttal
Expect loops: geochronology and isotope work cycles design ↔ analysis until the uncertainty budget closes; modeling work cycles design ↔ figures until the resolution tests convince.
Symptom → skill quick-routing
| User says | Underlying EPSL risk | Route to |
|---|---|---|
| "Is this significant enough for EPSL?" | frontier-vs-incremental desk screen | epsl-topic-selection |
| "The editor called it a regional study" | no process-level takeaway | epsl-topic-selection, epsl-literature-positioning |
| "Reviewer wants the full error budget" | analytical-transparency gap | epsl-data-analysis |
| "Where do I put 400 zircon analyses?" | data table belongs in repository/supplement | epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility |
| "I'm 2,000 words over" | letters-format cap | epsl-writing-style |
| "Which repository counts as FAIR?" | data-availability mandate | epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility |
| "Got a major revision" | rebuttal strategy | epsl-revision-and-rebuttal |
Worked micro-example (illustrative — routing a subduction-zone water paper)
A user arrives: "I have B isotopes and seismic velocities suggesting slab fluids reach the deep arc — where do I start?" The router's pass (illustrative):
- Frontier check →
epsl-topic-selection: the claim generalizes (how water leaves slabs), so it clears the process bar; confirm Letter shape, one advance. - Positioning →
epsl-literature-positioning: the gap must engage geochemists and seismologists, or one of the two reviewers will call it naive. - Design/analysis loop →
epsl-study-design↔epsl-data-analysis: reference materials, blanks, 2σ external reproducibility, and the velocity-model resolution test. - Exhibits + deposit →
epsl-figures-and-tables,epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility: one cross-section figure carrying the argument; data to EarthChem, waveform products via IRIS/EarthScope. - Write → pitch → submit →
epsl-writing-style→epsl-cover-letter→epsl-submission.
The router's standing job: surface the two gates the editors weigh first — process-level significance and analytical transparency — before any prose is written.
Anti-patterns
- Treating EPSL as a general geoscience outlet — a sound regional dataset with no process insight is the classic desk decline
- Planning companion papers; EPSL explicitly discourages them
- Self-selecting "Frontiers Paper" without an editor's invitation
- Discovering the ~6,500-word main-text cap after the draft is 9,000 words
- Leaving data deposition and the methods supplement until submission week
Output format
【Stage】idea / positioning / design / analysis / exhibits / reproducibility / writing / cover-letter / review / submit / revise
【Format check】Letter / invited Frontiers / Comment-Reply / not letters-shaped
【Route to】epsl-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— geochemistry, geophysics, and geochronology tooling by sub-field../../resources/official-source-map.md— official Elsevier/EPSL URLs behind every fact in this pack