Reviews Of Geophysics

Reviews of Geophysics (reviews-of-geophysics)

Journal positioning

Reviews of Geophysics is an American Geophysical Union (AGU) journal published by Wiley, and it is among the highest-impact venues in the Earth and space sciences. Its defining character is authority and synthesis: the journal publishes long-form, comprehensive review articles that survey the state of knowledge across a major geophysical topic, integrate disparate subdisciplines, and chart the open questions that will define a field for years. It does not publish primary research. Many articles are invited, and unsolicited proposals are typically vetted before a full manuscript is encouraged. The journal rewards reviews that are genuinely synthetic and forward-looking — not annotated bibliographies — and that are accessible to readers across the breadth of AGU's community. Readership is the entire Earth and space science community plus advanced students entering a field. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the Reviews of Geophysics AGU/Wiley site.

When to trigger

• The author proposes an authoritative, comprehensive review across a major Earth or space science topic and names Reviews of Geophysics.
• A team with recognized standing in a field wants to synthesize its state and define open questions for a broad geoscience readership.
• An author is choosing between Reviews of Geophysics and a Nature Reviews family venue for a major synthesis.
• The author needs the journal's invited/vetted-proposal expectation, synthesis bar, and desk-reject criteria before committing to a full draft.

Scope & topic fit

• Comprehensive syntheses across any AGU domain: atmospheric and climate science, oceanography, cryosphere, hydrology, solid earth, geodesy, biogeosciences, space physics, and planetary science.
• Cross-disciplinary integration: reviews that connect previously separate subfields (e.g., land-atmosphere-ocean coupling, deep-earth to surface processes, solar-terrestrial chains).
• Emerging fields or rapidly moving topics where an authoritative state-of-the-art synthesis is needed to orient the community.
• Methodological or observational-paradigm reviews that survey how a class of techniques has reshaped a field and where it is heading.
• Quantitative meta-syntheses that consolidate dispersed evidence into a coherent picture with identified uncertainties and research frontiers.
• Reviews that explicitly frame the major open questions and a forward agenda, not merely past results.

Method & evidence bar

• The review must be synthetic, not enumerative: it must integrate and critically evaluate the literature, reconcile conflicting findings, and articulate consensus and controversy.
• Authoritativeness is expected: comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature with balanced, fair treatment of competing schools of thought.
• Quantitative synthesis (compiled datasets, harmonized estimates, comparison tables) strengthens a review where the field allows it; assumptions and uncertainties must be stated.
• The forward-looking section must be substantive: specific open questions, testable hypotheses, and observational or modeling needs.
• Any compiled data products or code should be deposited in an AGU-compliant FAIR repository with persistent identifiers.
• Accessibility is part of the evidence bar: the synthesis must be intelligible to geoscientists outside the immediate subfield.

Structure & house style

• Articles are long-form and comprehensive; there is no short-format option — re-check current length expectations and figure conventions on the live site.
• The structure is thematic rather than IMRaD: an introduction that frames the field's significance, thematic sections that synthesize sub-areas, and a forward-looking synthesis of open questions.
• Figures are often original schematic syntheses, harmonized data compilations, and conceptual diagrams that consolidate the field; high production quality is expected.
• Extensive, current, and balanced referencing is required; the reference list itself is a resource for the community.
• A plain-language summary is required and must convey the significance to non-specialists.
• Writing must be authoritative yet accessible, defining terms and orienting readers from adjacent disciplines.

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 "Reviews of Geophysics submission guidelines" and follow the current AGU/Wiley version.
• Re-check the proposal/pre-submission process — most articles are invited or proposal-vetted; confirm how to submit a proposal before a full draft.
• Re-check current length expectations, figure conventions, and the plain-language summary requirement.
• Re-check AGU's data and software availability policy for any compiled products; confirm competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• One sentence — the field-level synthesis this review provides and why the community needs it now.
• The review is genuinely synthetic and critical, not an annotated bibliography, and reconciles conflicting findings.
• A pre-submission proposal has been submitted or invitation secured per current journal process.
• The forward-looking section states specific open questions and an observational/modeling agenda.
• Figures are original syntheses or harmonized compilations; any data products have FAIR deposition and persistent identifiers.
• A plain-language summary communicates the significance to non-specialists, and the text is accessible across subfields.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A primary research manuscript, or a review that is mostly a vehicle for the authors' own new results.
• A narrow, enumerative literature survey without genuine synthesis or a forward-looking agenda.
• A review submitted without the expected proposal/invitation vetting where the journal requires it.
• A review whose scope is too narrow or too subdiscipline-specific to interest the broad AGU readership.
• A missing plain-language summary, or text inaccessible to readers outside the immediate field.

Re-routing decision

• A high-impact review better matched to a commissioned cross-journal series: the relevant nature-reviews family venue (e.g., Nature Reviews Earth & Environment).
• Primary research needing full-length comprehensive treatment: the relevant section of journal-of-geophysical-research.
• A short, high-impact primary finding rather than a review: geophysical-research-letters.
• A water-science synthesis better matched to a water-focused venue: nature-water or water-research.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Reviews of Geophysics
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is this a genuinely synthetic, authoritative, forward-looking review of broad interest — not primary research or an annotated bibliography?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal/invitation process / length & figure conventions / plain-language summary / data-software deposition / disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → English-NaturalScience-Journal-Skills/skills/reviews-of-geophysics/SKILL.md