Skill UI

This skill provides detailed guidance for authors proposing or writing a high-level, conceptual review for Nature Reviews Materials. It outlines the journal's unique standards, focusing on conceptual synthesis, establishing unifying design principles, and providing an expert map for cross-disciplinary audiences in materials science and engineering. It covers scope, evidence bar, house style, and the crucial pre-submission collaboration process.

A comprehensive guide for authors planning an authoritative review or perspective piece for Nature Reviews Physics. It outlines the journal's high standards, emphasizing synthesis, conceptual framing, and cross-disciplinary accessibility over primary research reporting. Use this skill to structure your argument, understand the required evidence bar, and prepare for the editorial commissioning process.

This comprehensive guide helps authors determine if their research fits the scope of Nature Synthesis. It emphasizes that the core contribution must be a novel synthetic method or strategy (rather than just an application). The guide details specific requirements across organic, inorganic, materials, and electrochemical synthesis, covering method rigor, evidence standards, and journal formatting rules.

This skill guides advanced academic writers through the process of 'synthesis,' moving beyond mere summary in literature reviews. It teaches how to take multiple, seemingly disparate sources and synthesize them into a single, cumulative, and powerful central argument (the 'synthetic spine'). This is crucial for scholarly work, ensuring the contribution is a novel argument, not just a comprehensive list of what others have found.

This framework guides the critical appraisal of scientific literature syntheses. It helps users assess the credibility of individual studies—checking for power, replication status, and publication bias—to ensure the overall synthesis accurately reflects the best evidence. It emphasizes weighing conflicting results by construct rather than simple vote-counting, ensuring methodological balance and comprehensiveness in reporting.

This guide details the rigorous methodology for conducting systematic literature reviews and meta-science pieces, particularly for integrative reviews in psychology (PoPS style). It instructs researchers on how to systematically gather evidence across multiple sub-areas by utilizing techniques like forward/backward snowballing, comprehensive database sweeps (e.g., PsycINFO), and developing detailed evidence matrices. The focus is on synthesizing findings and establishing replicable search protocols to ensure academic rigor and comprehensiveness, moving beyond simple summarization.

A comprehensive guide for constructing academic exhibits, such as conceptual framework diagrams, 'who-found-what' summary tables, and meta-science plots, for literature review and perspective pieces. It ensures adherence to APA style, emphasizes comparing like-with-like constructs, and mandates systematic data sourcing to maintain scientific credibility and reproducibility.

This router guides researchers through the complex, multi-stage lifecycle of writing a broad, integrative, or theoretical 'perspective' article for high-impact journals like PoPS. It dictates the next necessary scholarly skill (e.g., literature synthesis, framework building, editor strategy, revision) based on the manuscript's current stage, helping authors transition from initial concept to final submission and revision.

This comprehensive guide helps authors assess if their manuscript is a suitable fit for Proceedings of the IEEE. It details the journal's high standards, guiding the transformation of primary research into comprehensive, balanced, and forward-looking review, survey, or tutorial articles. Use this resource to understand the required scope, synthesis depth, and common pitfalls to avoid desk rejection.

This skill is designed to help authors determine if their manuscript is appropriate for submission to Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. It provides a rigorous checklist for evaluating whether a work meets the journal's high bar for critical synthesis, comprehensiveness, and authority. It guides authors to reframe primary research into an integrative, agenda-setting review, covering scope, method rigor, and specific submission requirements.

This skill guides authors on crafting authoritative, comprehensive, and critical reviews for top-tier materials science journals. It emphasizes moving beyond simple literature summaries to provide deep, balanced, and critical synthesis of an entire field's state-of-the-art. Use this when developing a major review manuscript or determining if your work fits the scope of a high-impact, field-spanning publication.

This skill details the rigorous methodology for defining study eligibility criteria and coding data for comprehensive meta-analyses. It emphasizes pre-specifying inclusion/exclusion rules in a protocol, developing a detailed codebook, performing double-coding, and calculating inter-rater reliability (e.g., Kappa, ICC) to ensure the reproducibility and trustworthiness of synthesis findings.