Annual Review of Plant Biology (annual-review-of-plant-biology)
Journal positioning
Annual Review of Plant Biology, published by Annual Reviews, publishes authoritative,
comprehensive review articles that synthesize the state of a plant-biology field for a
broad scientific readership. It is an invited-review venue: articles are normally
commissioned by the editorial committee, and the contribution is a balanced, forward-looking
synthesis of a literature — not new primary data. The single largest mismatch is submitting
unsolicited primary research, or a narrow mini-review that reads like a grant introduction
rather than a definitive field synthesis. Authors with a compelling topic typically propose
it to the editors rather than submit a finished manuscript unrequested. This skill is a fit
/ venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author
guidance. Before proceeding, re-check the live Annual Reviews/AR Plant Biology guidance and
the commissioning process.
When to trigger
- The author is considering Annual Review of Plant Biology for a synthesis of a plant-biology
field and needs to confirm the invited-review expectation.
- A scientist wants to propose a review topic to the editorial committee and needs the
scoping/framing bar.
- The author is choosing between an Annual Reviews synthesis and a research/review article in
a primary plant journal.
- The author needs the venue's desk-reject heuristics (above all, unsolicited primary data).
Scope & topic fit
- Comprehensive syntheses across plant molecular, cellular, developmental, physiological,
genetic, evolutionary, and ecological biology.
- Integrative themes that connect mechanism to higher-level plant function or to applications
in agriculture and the environment.
- Emerging areas where a definitive, organizing synthesis would orient a field.
- Methodological and conceptual frameworks that have reshaped how plant biologists work.
- Historically grounded perspectives that frame current debates and open questions.
- Cross-cutting topics linking plant biology to genomics, microbiomes, climate, or breeding.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution is synthesis quality and balance, not new experiments: comprehensive
coverage, fair treatment of competing views, and a clear conceptual organization.
- Claims must be grounded in the cited primary literature; the review should weigh evidence,
not merely list it, and flag where evidence is contested or thin.
- The article should add an interpretive layer — a framework, reconciliation, or forward
agenda — beyond an annotated bibliography.
- Any figures/tables should be original syntheses (schematics, comparative tables) that
clarify the field, with permissions handled for reused items.
- Currency matters: the synthesis should reflect the present state and name the open
questions that will drive the next several years.
Structure & house style
- Annual Reviews house format: a scoped, authoritative review with an abstract, structured
sections, and a forward-looking outlook; re-check current length and format on the live
guide.
- Writing targets a broad scientific audience: accessible framing of specialist material,
defined terms, and an organizing narrative rather than a methods-heavy account.
- Display items are conceptual and integrative (pathway/process schematics, comparative
syntheses), not primary data figures.
- Disclosure of potential bias and balanced citation are part of the house expectation.
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, then
cite the current Annual Review of Plant Biology page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Annual Review of Plant Biology information for authors" and
follow the current Annual Reviews version, including how topics are commissioned/proposed.
- Confirm whether the article is invited; if not, identify the route to propose a topic to
the editorial committee.
- Re-check length, section, figure/table, and reference-style expectations.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, AI-use disclosure, copyright/
permissions, and open-access terms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- Submitting unsolicited primary research data to an invited-review venue.
- A narrow mini-review that reads like a grant introduction rather than a field synthesis.
- Unbalanced coverage that promotes the authors' own work and omits competing evidence.
- An annotated bibliography with no organizing framework or forward outlook.
- An outdated synthesis that misses the recent literature defining the field.
Re-routing decision
- New primary plant data with broad significance →
nature-plants or the-plant-cell.
- Integrative ecology/physiology primary research →
new-phytologist.
- Mechanistic molecular primary research →
the-plant-journal.
- Sustainability-framed agronomy review or meta-analysis →
agronomy-for-sustainable-development.
- Broad cross-discipline review/perspective → a Nature Portfolio Perspective or
science-advances review.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Annual Review of Plant Biology
[Invited?] Invited / Proposing topic / Unsolicited (flag risk)
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest plant-biology synthesis themes>
[Synthesis value] <the organizing framework / forward agenda the review adds>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <commissioning route / length / figures / permissions / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if primary data or out of scope, a better-matched venue>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Agriculture-Environment-Journal-Skills/skills/annual-review-of-plant-biology/SKILL.md
1---2name: annual-review-of-plant-biology3description: Use when targeting Annual Review of Plant Biology or deciding whether a plant-biology review proposal fits this invited-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the authoritative-synthesis and invited-article bar, evidence and balance expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.4---5
6
7# Annual Review of Plant Biology (annual-review-of-plant-biology)
8
9## Journal positioning
10
11Annual Review of Plant Biology, published by Annual Reviews, publishes **authoritative,
12comprehensive review articles** that synthesize the state of a plant-biology field for a
13broad scientific readership. It is an **invited-review venue**: articles are normally
14commissioned by the editorial committee, and the contribution is a balanced, forward-looking
15synthesis of a literature — not new primary data. The single largest mismatch is submitting
16unsolicited primary research, or a narrow mini-review that reads like a grant introduction
17rather than a definitive field synthesis. Authors with a compelling topic typically propose
18it to the editors rather than submit a finished manuscript unrequested. This skill is a **fit
19/ venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current author
20guidance. Before proceeding, re-check the live Annual Reviews/AR Plant Biology guidance and
21the commissioning process.
22
23## When to trigger
24
25- The author is considering Annual Review of Plant Biology for a synthesis of a plant-biology
26 field and needs to confirm the invited-review expectation.
27- A scientist wants to propose a review topic to the editorial committee and needs the
28 scoping/framing bar.
29- The author is choosing between an Annual Reviews synthesis and a research/review article in
30 a primary plant journal.
31- The author needs the venue's desk-reject heuristics (above all, unsolicited primary data).
32
33## Scope & topic fit
34
35- Comprehensive syntheses across plant molecular, cellular, developmental, physiological,
36 genetic, evolutionary, and ecological biology.
37- Integrative themes that connect mechanism to higher-level plant function or to applications
38 in agriculture and the environment.
39- Emerging areas where a definitive, organizing synthesis would orient a field.
40- Methodological and conceptual frameworks that have reshaped how plant biologists work.
41- Historically grounded perspectives that frame current debates and open questions.
42- Cross-cutting topics linking plant biology to genomics, microbiomes, climate, or breeding.
43
44## Method & evidence bar
45
46- The contribution is **synthesis quality and balance**, not new experiments: comprehensive
47 coverage, fair treatment of competing views, and a clear conceptual organization.
48- Claims must be grounded in the cited primary literature; the review should weigh evidence,
49 not merely list it, and flag where evidence is contested or thin.
50- The article should add an interpretive layer — a framework, reconciliation, or forward
51 agenda — beyond an annotated bibliography.
52- Any figures/tables should be original syntheses (schematics, comparative tables) that
53 clarify the field, with permissions handled for reused items.
54- Currency matters: the synthesis should reflect the present state and name the open
55 questions that will drive the next several years.
56
57## Structure & house style
58
59- Annual Reviews house format: a scoped, authoritative review with an abstract, structured
60 sections, and a forward-looking outlook; re-check current length and format on the live
61 guide.
62- Writing targets a broad scientific audience: accessible framing of specialist material,
63 defined terms, and an organizing narrative rather than a methods-heavy account.
64- Display items are conceptual and integrative (pathway/process schematics, comparative
65 syntheses), not primary data figures.
66- Disclosure of potential bias and balanced citation are part of the house expectation.
67
68## Official-submission checklist
69
70- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and
71 `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors, then
72 cite the current Annual Review of Plant Biology page you checked.
73- Search the live site for "Annual Review of Plant Biology information for authors" and
74 follow the current Annual Reviews version, including how topics are commissioned/proposed.
75- Confirm whether the article is invited; if not, identify the route to propose a topic to
76 the editorial committee.
77- Re-check length, section, figure/table, and reference-style expectations.
78- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, AI-use disclosure, copyright/
79 permissions, and open-access terms.
80- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
81 win.
82
83## Pre-submission self-check
84
85- [ ] The article is (or is being proposed as) an invited synthesis, not unsolicited primary research.
86- [ ] Coverage is comprehensive and competing views are treated fairly.
87- [ ] The review adds an interpretive framework or forward agenda beyond a literature list.
88- [ ] Figures/tables are original conceptual syntheses with permissions handled.
89- [ ] The synthesis reflects current understanding and names the key open questions.
90- [ ] Length, format, references, and disclosures match the live Annual Reviews guide.
91
92## Common desk-reject triggers
93
94- Submitting unsolicited primary research data to an invited-review venue.
95- A narrow mini-review that reads like a grant introduction rather than a field synthesis.
96- Unbalanced coverage that promotes the authors' own work and omits competing evidence.
97- An annotated bibliography with no organizing framework or forward outlook.
98- An outdated synthesis that misses the recent literature defining the field.
99
100## Re-routing decision
101
102- New primary plant data with broad significance → `nature-plants` or `the-plant-cell`.
103- Integrative ecology/physiology primary research → `new-phytologist`.
104- Mechanistic molecular primary research → `the-plant-journal`.
105- Sustainability-framed agronomy review or meta-analysis → `agronomy-for-sustainable-development`.
106- Broad cross-discipline review/perspective → a Nature Portfolio Perspective or `science-advances` review.
107
108## Output format
109
110```text
111[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
112[Target] Annual Review of Plant Biology
113[Invited?] Invited / Proposing topic / Unsolicited (flag risk)
114[Topic tags] <2–3 closest plant-biology synthesis themes>
115[Synthesis value] <the organizing framework / forward agenda the review adds>
116[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
117[Official items to re-check] <commissioning route / length / figures / permissions / disclosures>
118[Re-route suggestion] <if primary data or out of scope, a better-matched venue>
119```
120
121---
122
123**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Agriculture-Environment-Journal-Skills/skills/annual-review-of-plant-biology/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain