journal-of-hydrology

name	journal-of-hydrology
description	Use when targeting Journal of Hydrology or deciding whether a hydrology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the broad process/observational/applied-hydrology contribution bar, data-and-reproducibility expectations, Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Journal of Hydrology (journal-of-hydrology)

Journal positioning

Journal of Hydrology is Elsevier's broad-scope outlet for the hydrological sciences, covering surface and subsurface hydrology, hydrometeorology, water quality, hydrological modeling, and observational hydrology across catchment to continental scales. Its defining expectation is a sound, useful hydrological advance — a process insight, a method, a dataset-driven analysis, or an applied result that improves how hydrologic systems are understood, predicted, or managed; it deliberately accommodates process, observational, methodological, and applied studies more broadly than AGU's Water Resources Research, whose bar is fundamental water-science novelty. A well-executed regional study can fit here if it yields transferable lessons or clear hydrological insight, even without a wholly new theory. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live Journal of Hydrology author instructions and data policy.

When to trigger

• The author names Journal of Hydrology and wants a fit/framing check for a hydrology paper.
• A regional or applied hydrologic study needs to be positioned for its transferable insight rather than rejected as "just a case study."
• The author is choosing between Journal of Hydrology, water-resources-research, and a broader earth/climate venue.
• The author needs the journal's breadth-of-scope reasoning and reproducibility expectations.

Scope & topic fit

• Surface-water hydrology: rainfall–runoff, streamflow generation, floods, droughts, and catchment water balance across scales.
• Subsurface and groundwater hydrology: recharge, aquifer dynamics, soil-water and vadose-zone processes, surface–groundwater interaction.
• Hydrometeorology and snow/ice hydrology: precipitation, evapotranspiration, snowmelt, and land-surface water and energy partitioning.
• Hydrological modeling, forecasting, remote sensing, and data assimilation, including large-sample and benchmarking studies.
• Water quality, solute and sediment transport, and ecohydrology with a clear hydrological process or management linkage.
• Applied and regional hydrology — water-resources assessment, human impacts, land-use and climate-change effects — when the analysis yields transferable insight.

Method & evidence bar

• The contribution must be a defensible hydrological advance: useful process insight, method, dataset analysis, or applied finding, with stated transferability or limitations.
• Models must be calibrated and evaluated with appropriate skill metrics, independent validation, and uncertainty treatment; equifinality and parameter sensitivity should be addressed.
• Observational and field studies need credible monitoring design, instrument/error characterization, and reproducible data processing.
• Claims of improvement require comparison against a sensible baseline model or method, not a weak strawman; large-sample or multi-catchment evidence strengthens generality.
• A purely regional result should be explicit about what generalizes and what does not, so reviewers can judge the broader hydrological value.
• Data underpinning the analysis should be available or clearly sourced, per Elsevier and journal data policy.

Structure & house style

• Standard Elsevier research-article structure (Introduction, Study area/Data, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions); re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
• The introduction must state the hydrological gap and the specific advance, not just describe a basin or list prior work.
• Figures should be quantitative and load-bearing (hydrographs, maps, skill/benchmark comparisons, uncertainty bands); study-area maps must support, not replace, analysis.
• A highlights list and a structured or graphical abstract are commonly expected — re-check current requirements on the live guide.
• Methods and data-availability statements must let a reader reproduce the central result.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Journal of Hydrology page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Journal of Hydrology guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
• Re-check article types, highlights/abstract format, and word/figure expectations.
• Confirm the data-availability/research-data policy and any repository or data-statement requirements.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure, and open-access options.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• The advance is a clear hydrological insight, method, or applied finding, not an undigested data dump.
• Models are evaluated with skill metrics, independent validation, and uncertainty treatment.
• Observational/field design, error characterization, and processing are reproducible.
• Improvement is shown against a sensible baseline, and transferability/limitations are stated.
• Highlights, abstract format, and data-availability statement meet current requirements.
• Figures are quantitative and load-bearing, not dominated by descriptive study-area maps.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A regional case study presented with no transferable insight, generalization, or stated lessons.
• Model results with no calibration/validation, skill metrics, or uncertainty analysis.
• Observational study with weak monitoring design or no error characterization.
• Re-analysis of standard data with a routine method and no new hydrological understanding.
• Missing data-availability statement or non-compliance with the research-data policy.
• Scope mismatch: a pure water-engineering design, climatology, or chemistry paper with no hydrological process or management linkage.

Re-routing decision

• Fundamental, strongly novel water-science theory/methodology → water-resources-research.
• Land–atmosphere water/energy/flux process focus → agricultural-and-forest-meteorology.
• Carbon/nutrient biogeochemical cycling dominant → global-biogeochemical-cycles.
• Climate-dynamics or large-scale climate framing dominant → journal-of-climate.
• Aquatic-ecology / freshwater-ecosystem emphasis → limnology-and-oceanography.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Journal of Hydrology
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest hydrology topics>
[Hydrological advance] <the process/method/applied insight and its transferability>
[Method/evidence] <does calibration/validation + uncertainty + data availability clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / highlights / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>