| name | annual-review-of-plant-biology |
| description | 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. |
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>
