nature-food

# Nature Food (nature-food) ## Journal positioning Nature Food is the Nature Portfolio journal for research, analysis, and opinion across the entire food system — production, processing, distribution, consumption, nutrition, and the environmental, economic, and social dimensions that connect them. Its defining expectation is **food-systems significance**: a result that matters beyond a single crop, process, or location and speaks to how food is produced or consumed sustainably and healthily. A solid agronomy, food-chemistry, or nutrition result with no systems-level significance is a poor fit, however rigorous. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Nature Food submission guidance. ## When to trigger - The author names Nature Food and wants a fit/framing check for a food-systems paper. - A specialist agronomy / food-science / nutrition / supply-chain result must be re-framed into a food-systems-significance narrative. - The author is choosing between Nature Food, a Nature Portfolio sibling, and a specialist agriculture or food journal. - The author needs Nature Food's desk-reject heuristics and a credible alternative route. ## Scope & topic fit - Sustainable food production: crops, livestock, aquaculture, and agroecology when the contribution reaches system-level outcomes (yield–environment trade-offs, resilience). - Food environment and nutrition: diets, food security, and health outcomes analyzed at population or systems scale. - Food processing, safety, and supply chains when the advance reframes a systems problem, not just a unit operation. - Environmental footprint of food: land, water, biodiversity, and greenhouse-gas analyses, including life-cycle and modeling studies. - Food policy, economics, and behavior with rigorous, generalizable evidence. - Transdisciplinary syntheses that connect production, environment, and human health. ## Method & evidence bar - The central claim must carry **food-systems significance**, supported by evidence appropriate to the method (field/experimental, observational, modeling, or analytical). - Modeling and assessment studies must be transparent: stated assumptions, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty; scenario work must justify scenario choice. - Empirical claims need adequate replication, controls, and representativeness; survey and observational data need design and bias discussion. - Cross-disciplinary papers must satisfy the evidence bar of each discipline they touch (e.g., both agronomic and environmental-accounting rigor). - Data and code availability are expected for the central analysis; follow Nature reporting and data-availability policy. ## Structure & house style - Nature Portfolio format: a significance-forward abstract and an introduction that frames the food-systems problem and the gap; re-check current article types (Article, Analysis, Perspective, etc.) on the live guide. - Main display items should carry the systems-level argument; specialist detail moves to supplementary information. - Methods are detailed and reproducible; reporting summary and data/code statements are required per Nature policy. - Framing should be accessible to a broad food-systems readership, not only one specialty. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Nature Portfolio anchors, then cite the current Nature Food page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Food submission guidelines" and follow the current version. - Re-check article types, abstract/format expectations, the reporting summary, and the data/code-availability policy. - Confirm requirements for modeling transparency, life-cycle inventory disclosure, or survey instruments if applicable. - Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] The contribution has food-systems significance, not just a clean specialist result. - [ ] The advance is framed for a broad food-systems readership, with specialist detail in SI. - [ ] Modeling/assessment assumptions, sensitivity, and uncertainty are explicit. - [ ] Empirical evidence has adequate replication, representativeness, and bias discussion. - [ ] Each discipline the paper spans is supported to its own evidence standard. - [ ] Data/code availability and the Nature reporting summary are addressed. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A rigorous but narrow agronomy, food-chemistry, or nutrition result with no systems-level significance. - Single-site, single-season, or unreplicated field/processing studies presented as broadly generalizable. - Opaque modeling or life-cycle assessment with no sensitivity/uncertainty analysis. - A supply-chain or policy claim with weak, non-representative, or cherry-picked evidence. - Framing pitched to one specialty community rather than the food-systems audience. ## Re-routing decision - Crop/agronomy field result without systems framing → `field-crops-research` / `agronomy-for-sustainable-development`. - Food composition/safety chemistry → `food-chemistry`. - Agroecosystem environment focus → `agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment`. - Broad earth/environment OA framing → `communications-earth-and-environment`. - Plant-science mechanism → `nature-plants` / `new-phytologist`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Nature Food [Topic tags] <2–3 closest food-systems topics> [Systems significance] <why it matters beyond one crop/process/site> [Method/evidence] <does the evidence + transparency clear Nature Food's bar?> [Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection> [Official items to re-check] <article type / reporting summary / data policy / disclosures> [Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue> ```