--- name: atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics description: Use when targeting Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) or deciding whether an atmospheric-composition manuscript fits this open-access, interactive-peer-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics) ## Journal positioning Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is a European Geosciences Union (EGU) journal published by Copernicus, and it is a leading venue for research on the Earth's atmosphere — its composition, chemistry, aerosols, clouds, dynamics, and the physical processes that govern them. Its defining character is open access combined with interactive public peer review: manuscripts are first posted as discussion papers (ACPD) and undergo open, citable, public commentary alongside designated referees before final acceptance. The journal rewards rigorous, well-documented atmospheric science with clear methodological transparency, and the open-review model places a premium on completeness, reproducibility, and the ability to withstand public scrutiny. It values full-length, thorough treatments rather than short rapid communications. Readership is the international atmospheric-science community. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the ACP/EGU/Copernicus site. ## When to trigger - The author names ACP as the target venue for a thorough atmospheric-composition, aerosol, cloud, chemistry, or dynamics study. - A manuscript is rigorous and complete enough to withstand open public peer review, and the author values open access and the interactive ACPD model. - A paper needs full-length space to document methods, data, and analysis thoroughly rather than a short rapid communication. - The author needs ACP's interactive-review expectations, scope boundaries, and desk-reject criteria before submission. ## Scope & topic fit - Atmospheric composition and chemistry: gas-phase and multiphase chemistry, trace gases, oxidants, and chemical mechanisms in the troposphere and stratosphere. - Aerosols: sources, formation, microphysics, optical and chemical properties, and aerosol-radiation interactions. - Clouds and aerosol-cloud interactions: microphysics, cloud processes, and their role in the climate system. - Atmospheric dynamics and transport: circulation, mixing, boundary-layer processes, and their coupling to composition. - Measurement and remote-sensing studies of atmospheric composition, including instrument-based field and laboratory campaigns. - Modeling studies — process, regional, and global — of atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, clouds, and dynamics with rigorous evaluation. ## Method & evidence bar - The contribution must be rigorous and complete; because review is public, methods, data, and analysis must be documented thoroughly enough to withstand open scrutiny. - Measurement studies need full instrument characterization, calibration, uncertainty quantification, and treatment of artifacts and biases. - Modeling studies need clear configuration, evaluation against observations, sensitivity analyses, and honest discussion of structural uncertainty. - Laboratory studies need reproducible conditions, error analysis, and clear linkage to atmospheric relevance. - Data and code must be deposited in a FAIR-compliant repository with persistent identifiers, consistent with Copernicus open-data policy; availability statements are mandatory. - Statistical claims about trends, correlations, or differences must account for atmospheric variability and autocorrelation. ## Structure & house style - ACP uses a full-length IMRaD format suited to thorough documentation; re-check current length and figure conventions on the live site. - The manuscript is first published as an ACPD discussion paper and undergoes interactive public review; authors must be prepared to respond to public comments and designated referees in the open. - The introduction situates the work in the atmospheric-science literature and states the scientific question; methods are detailed and reproducible. - Figures and tables must be efficient and publication-quality; supplementary material carries extended data, additional analyses, and instrument details. - The abstract is unstructured and must convey the question, approach, and key findings. - Copernicus formatting, reference style, and code/data availability sections must be followed. ## 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 for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked. - Search the live site for "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics submission guidelines" and follow the current EGU/Copernicus version. - Re-check the interactive public peer-review (ACPD) process and the obligations it places on authors during open discussion. - Re-check current length and figure conventions, Copernicus manuscript-preparation requirements, and supplementary-material conventions. - Re-check the FAIR data and code availability policy and accepted repositories; confirm article-processing-charge (APC) and open-access licensing terms, competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence — the atmospheric-science question answered and why the result matters. - [ ] The manuscript is complete and rigorous enough to withstand open public peer review in ACPD. - [ ] Measurements have full characterization, calibration, and uncertainty; models are evaluated against observations with sensitivity analysis. - [ ] Methods and data are documented thoroughly enough for reproducibility under public scrutiny. - [ ] Data and code are deposited in a FAIR repository with persistent identifiers; availability statements are ready. - [ ] APC, open-access licensing, and Copernicus formatting requirements are understood and prepared. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A study outside atmospheric composition, aerosols, clouds, chemistry, or dynamics, or a regional case without broader process insight. - An incomplete or insufficiently documented manuscript that could not withstand open public review. - Measurement work lacking instrument characterization, calibration, or uncertainty quantification. - Modeling work without evaluation against observations or treatment of structural uncertainty. - A missing or non-compliant FAIR data/code availability statement, or failure to meet Copernicus open-access and formatting requirements. ## Re-routing decision - A short, high-impact atmospheric finding that does not need full-length documentation: `geophysical-research-letters`. - A full-length atmospheric study better matched to the AGU community: `journal-of-geophysical-research-atmospheres`. - A higher-impact, broader-reach atmospheric or climate result with cross-disciplinary significance: `nature-geoscience`. - An authoritative invited review of an atmospheric topic rather than primary research: `reviews-of-geophysics`. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```