| name | water-resources-research |
| description | Use when targeting Water Resources Research (WRR) or deciding whether a hydrology / water-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the quantitative water-science contribution bar, data-and-code deposition expectations, AGU house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. |
Water Resources Research (water-resources-research)
Journal positioning
Water Resources Research (WRR) is the American Geophysical Union's flagship journal for
the science of water — the physical, chemical, biological, and socio-hydrological
processes governing water resources, and the methods used to observe, model, and manage
them. The defining expectation is a quantitative, generalizable advance in water
science: a new process understanding, method, theory, or analysis that transfers beyond
one basin. An applied case study that reports model results for a single catchment with no
methodological or conceptual contribution is a weak fit. 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 WRR/AGU author instructions and data policy.
When to trigger
- The author names WRR and wants a fit/framing check for a hydrology or water-science paper.
- A basin-specific modeling or monitoring study must be re-framed into a transferable
methodological or process contribution.
- The author is choosing between WRR,
journal-of-hydrology, and a broader earth-science
venue.
- The author needs WRR's quantitative-contribution bar and AGU data-deposition expectations.
Scope & topic fit
- Surface-water and groundwater hydrology: catchment processes, streamflow, recharge,
vadose-zone and subsurface flow and transport.
- Hydrologic modeling, data assimilation, uncertainty quantification, and predictability.
- Hydroclimatology, snow/ice hydrology, and land–atmosphere water exchange.
- Water quality, contaminant transport, and ecohydrology when mechanistically framed.
- Socio-hydrology, water-resources systems, and human–water interactions with rigorous
quantitative analysis.
- Hydrologic measurement, sensing, and experimental methods that advance observation.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution must be quantitative and transferable: a method, theory, or process
insight whose value is not confined to one site.
- Models must be evaluated against data with appropriate skill metrics, benchmarks, and
uncertainty quantification; parameter identifiability and equifinality should be addressed.
- Observational studies need defensible sampling/monitoring design, error characterization,
and reproducible processing.
- Claims of improvement require comparison to a credible baseline (an established model or
method), not a strawman.
- Data and code underpinning the results should be deposited in a FAIR community repository
per AGU policy.
Structure & house style
- AGU article format; WRR publishes research articles, technical reports/notes, and
commentaries — re-check current article types and length expectations on the live guide.
- The introduction must state the water-science gap and the transferable contribution, not
just describe a study area.
- Figures should be quantitative and load-bearing (hydrographs, maps with uncertainty,
skill/benchmark comparisons); a key-points summary is part of the AGU format.
- Methods and data/code availability statements must let a reader reproduce the central
result; AGU expects open data/software with persistent identifiers.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.md and
../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the AGU anchors, then cite the
current WRR page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Water Resources Research author guidelines" and follow the
current AGU/Wiley version.
- Re-check article types, key-points and abstract format, and length expectations.
- Confirm the AGU data and software availability policy: deposit data/code in an
approved repository and cite it with a DOI.
- 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
Common desk-reject triggers
- Single-catchment model application with no methodological or conceptual advance.
- Model results presented without benchmarking, skill metrics, or uncertainty quantification.
- Observational study with weak sampling design or no error characterization.
- Missing or non-compliant data/code deposition where AGU policy requires it.
- Scope mismatch: a pure water-engineering design, water-policy essay, or chemistry paper with
no water-science contribution.
Re-routing decision
- Broader process/observational/applied hydrology →
journal-of-hydrology.
- Carbon/nutrient biogeochemical cycling focus →
global-biogeochemical-cycles.
- Climate-dynamics framing dominant →
journal-of-climate.
- Land–atmosphere flux / agro-meteorology →
agricultural-and-forest-meteorology.
- New documented hydrologic dataset as the product →
earth-system-science-data.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Water Resources Research
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest water-science topics>
[Transferable contribution] <the method/theory/process insight beyond one basin>
[Method/evidence] <does benchmarking + uncertainty + data deposition clear WRR's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / key points / AGU data-software policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
