nature-plants

# Nature Plants (nature-plants) ## Journal positioning Nature Plants is the Nature Portfolio journal devoted to plant science in its full breadth — from molecular and cell biology through development, physiology, genetics, and evolution to ecology and crop science — including the plant-associated microbes and the agricultural and societal contexts in which plants matter. Its defining expectation is a **significant advance with broad significance**: a finding that changes how a wide plant-science readership thinks about a problem, not a clean but incremental result that extends one specialist literature. A technically sound, narrowly framed specialist paper with no broad significance is a poor fit, however careful the work. 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 Plants submission guidance. ## When to trigger - The author names Nature Plants and wants a fit/framing check for a plant-science paper. - A specialist molecular, physiological, or ecological plant result must be re-framed into a broad-significance, Nature-style narrative for a wide plant audience. - The author is choosing between Nature Plants, a Nature Portfolio sibling, and a strong specialist plant journal such as `the-plant-cell` or `new-phytologist`. - The author needs Nature Plants' desk-reject heuristics and a credible alternative route. ## Scope & topic fit - Molecular and cellular plant biology — signaling, gene regulation, cell architecture — when the mechanism reframes a broadly held understanding. - Plant development, physiology, and stress responses with conceptual reach beyond one pathway or species. - Plant genetics, genomics, and evolution, including domestication and trait architecture with significance across taxa or systems. - Plant ecology, plant–microbe and plant–environment interactions framed for cross-field relevance. - Crop science and agricultural plant biology when the finding has implications wider than a single cultivar or trial. - Methods and resources that open new questions for a broad plant-science community. ## Method & evidence bar - The central claim must carry **broad plant-science significance**, supported by evidence matched to the method (genetic, molecular, physiological, ecological, or computational). - Mechanistic claims require convergent lines of evidence — genetics plus biochemistry plus cell biology where appropriate — not a single correlative assay. - Genotype/phenotype and field/ecology claims need adequate replication, controls, and appropriate statistics; species and germplasm provenance must be documented. - Genomic, transcriptomic, and structural data must follow community deposition standards; '-omics' claims need validation beyond list-generation. - Data and code underlying the central result are expected per Nature reporting and data-availability policy, with a completed reporting summary. ## Structure & house style - Nature Portfolio format: a significance-forward abstract and an introduction that frames the broad problem and gap; re-check current article types (Article, Letter, Resource, Perspective, etc.) on the live guide. - Main display items must carry the broad-significance argument; specialist controls and extended datasets move to supplementary information. - Methods are detailed and reproducible; the reporting summary, statistics reporting, and data/code statements are required per Nature policy. - Framing should be legible to plant scientists outside the immediate subfield, not only to specialists in the exact system. ## 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 Plants page you checked. - Search the live site for "Nature Plants submission guidelines" and follow the current version. - Re-check article types, abstract/format expectations, the reporting summary, and the data/code-availability policy. - Confirm sequence/structure/germplasm deposition requirements and accession-number reporting where 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 advance has broad plant-science significance, not just a clean specialist increment. - [ ] The story is framed for plant scientists outside the immediate subfield, with detail in SI. - [ ] Mechanistic claims rest on convergent evidence, not a single correlative assay. - [ ] Replication, controls, statistics, and germplasm/species provenance are documented. - [ ] '-omics' and sequence/structure data are deposited and validated beyond list-generation. - [ ] Data/code availability and the Nature reporting summary are addressed. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A technically sound but incremental specialist result with no broad significance. - Mechanism asserted from a single correlative experiment without genetic or biochemical support. - Single-condition, single-genotype, or unreplicated phenotyping presented as general. - '-omics' descriptive catalogues with no functional validation or conceptual advance. - Framing pitched only to one subfield rather than the broad plant-science readership. ## Re-routing decision - Deep molecular/cellular mechanism, specialist depth → `the-plant-cell` or `the-plant-journal`. - Ecology, physiology, environmental interactions breadth → `new-phytologist`. - Field-scale agronomy and yield → `field-crops-research`. - Food-systems significance dominant → `nature-food`. - Broad cross-discipline conceptual advance → `nature-ecology-and-evolution` or `nature-communications`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Nature Plants [Topic tags] <2–3 closest plant-science topics> [Broad significance] <why it matters across plant science, not one subfield> [Method/evidence] <does convergent evidence + reproducibility clear Nature Plants' bar?> [Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection> [Official items to re-check] <article type / reporting summary / data + accession policy / disclosures> [Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue> ```