earth-and-planetary-science-letters

name	earth-and-planetary-science-letters
description	Use when targeting Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) or deciding whether a quantitative solid-earth or planetary-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's broad-interest process-science fit, the quantitative geochemistry/geophysics evidence bar, Elsevier house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Earth and Planetary Science Letters (earth-and-planetary-science-letters)

Journal positioning

Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL), published by Elsevier, is a broad-interest journal for quantitative research on the physical and chemical processes of the Earth and other planets. The defining expectation is a process-oriented, quantitatively rigorous advance — in geochemistry, geophysics, geodynamics, petrology and mineral physics, planetary processes, or paleoclimate/paleoceanography proxy science — that is significant to a wide earth- and planetary-science readership rather than to one specialty alone. Despite the "Letters" name, EPSL favors complete, self-contained articles in which the data, modeling, and interpretation jointly support a generalizable mechanism; a purely descriptive regional report, a method note with no process payoff, or a result of interest only to a narrow sub-field 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 EPSL / Elsevier author instructions and data policy.

When to trigger

• The author names EPSL and wants a fit/framing check for a quantitative solid-earth or planetary-science paper.
• A regional geochemical or geophysical study must be re-framed into a transferable process or mechanism of broad interest.
• The author is choosing between EPSL (longer quantitative process article) and geology (short, high-immediacy GSA letter).
• The author needs EPSL's broad-interest significance bar and quantitative evidence expectations.

Scope & topic fit

• Geochemistry and isotope geochemistry: tracers, dating, and elemental/isotopic systems constraining earth and planetary processes.
• Geophysics and geodynamics: seismology, mantle dynamics, tectonics, gravity/magnetics, and lithosphere/deep-earth structure and evolution.
• Petrology, mineral physics, and high-pressure/high-temperature experiments bearing on planetary interiors and differentiation.
• Surface and planetary processes: volcanism, impacts, planetary evolution, and comparative planetology with quantitative constraints.
• Paleoclimate and paleoceanography proxy records and their calibration, when the contribution is a mechanism or a generalizable proxy advance.
• Cross-cutting modeling that links observations to a quantitative earth/planetary process.

Method & evidence bar

• The contribution must be a quantitative, generalizable process or mechanism, not a catalogue of measurements from one locality.
• Geochemical/isotopic data require documented analytical methods, standards, reference materials, blanks, and full uncertainty propagation.
• Geophysical and modeling results need stated assumptions, resolution/sensitivity tests, and evaluation against independent observations.
• Proxy and paleo reconstructions require explicit calibration, age-model treatment, and uncertainty, with alternative interpretations considered.
• Claims of broad significance must connect the local result to a wider earth/planetary process; mechanism should be argued, not merely correlated.
• Underlying data (and code where used) should be deposited in a FAIR repository or supplied as machine-readable tables per Elsevier/research-data policy.

Structure & house style

• Elsevier article format; EPSL is article-length and self-contained despite the "Letters" name — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
• The introduction must state the earth/planetary-science gap and the broad-interest contribution, not merely describe a field area or sample set.
• Figures should be quantitative and load-bearing (data with uncertainty, model–data comparisons, maps/cross-sections, isotope/phase diagrams) and support the mechanism.
• Methods and a data-availability statement must let a reader reproduce the central result; analytical protocols and data tables belong in the paper or supplement.
• Interpretation should be proportionate to the data and explicitly bounded by stated uncertainties.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier/EPSL anchors, then cite the current EPSL page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Earth and Planetary Science Letters guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
• Re-check article types, abstract/format expectations, and length/figure expectations.
• Confirm the research-data policy: deposit data/code in a FAIR repository or provide machine-readable data tables, and cite them appropriately.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, CRediT, 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 is a quantitative, generalizable process/mechanism, not a local catalogue.
• Analytical methods, standards, and full uncertainty propagation are documented.
• Geophysical/model results include resolution/sensitivity tests and independent evaluation.
• Proxy/paleo reconstructions state calibration, age models, and alternative interpretations.
• Broad-interest significance is argued by linking the local result to a wider process.
• Data (and code) are deposited or supplied machine-readable per the data policy.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A descriptive regional report with no transferable process or broad-interest significance.
• Geochemical data without standards, reference materials, or uncertainty propagation.
• Model or geophysical results lacking sensitivity tests or independent evaluation.
• Proxy/paleo claims without calibration, age-model treatment, or uncertainty.
• Interpretation that outruns the data or ignores plausible alternatives.
• Scope too narrow or too applied for EPSL's broad earth/planetary readership.

Re-routing decision

• Short, high-immediacy result with broad significance in tight length → geology.
• Highest-impact earth-science breakthrough for a general audience → nature-geoscience.
• Carbon/nutrient/element cycling and budgets are the core → global-biogeochemical-cycles.
• A documented dataset is the deliverable rather than the interpretation → earth-system-science-data.
• Short, fast geophysical/geochemical communication → geophysical-research-letters.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Earth and Planetary Science Letters
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest solid-earth/planetary topics>
[Process contribution] <the quantitative, generalizable mechanism beyond one locality>
[Method/evidence] <do analytics + uncertainty + model/data evaluation clear EPSL's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / data policy / analytical reporting / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>