Individual skill

ngeo-referee-strategy

Use when choosing suggested and excluded referees for a Nature Geoscience submission and pre-empting the objections Earth-science referees are likely to raise. Plans referee handling; does not write the manuscript or the rebuttal.

Nature-Geoscience-Skills/skills/ngeo-referee-strategy/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,409
Repository last updated
Sep 27, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Nature Geoscience Referee Strategy (ngeo-referee-strategy)

## When to trigger

- The Editorial Manager form asks for suggested / excluded reviewers
- You want to anticipate the objections a Nature Geoscience referee will raise and address them in advance
- A prior manuscript was declined and you are rethinking who reviews it
- You are coordinating the cover-letter referee section (see `ngeo-cover-letter`)

## How Nature Geoscience review works (durable shape)

An in-house editor first triages on **broad interest and Earth-system importance**; only a minority of submissions are sent out. Those that pass go to referees (commonly two to three) who assess both **technical soundness** and **significance/breadth**. A referee can recommend rejection on **interest grounds even when the work is correct** — so your strategy must defend the science *and* the venue fit. Review is **single-blind by default**, with an **opt-in double-blind** route (choose it at submission and anonymise the manuscript accordingly). Resubmission and appeal routes exist (handled in `ngeo-revision`).

## Choosing suggested referees
Back to top