--- name: laser-and-photonics-reviews description: Use when targeting Laser & Photonics Reviews or deciding whether a laser-physics / photonics review or original-research manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the synthesis-and-significance bar, review and original-research rigor, house style, the review-vs-primary-research routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Laser & Photonics Reviews (laser-and-photonics-reviews) ## Journal positioning Laser & Photonics Reviews is a Wiley journal for laser physics and photonics with a distinct **review-leaning identity**: it publishes authoritative, critical reviews that synthesize a field and set its agenda, alongside selected high-quality original research of broad photonics interest. The defining expectation differs from a primary-research-first venue: a review must do more than catalogue the literature — it must organize, critique, and frame open problems with the authority of someone shaping the field; an original-research submission must be of review-worthy significance and breadth. A narrow tutorial, an uncritical reference list, or an incremental experimental note is a poor fit. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Laser & Photonics Reviews author guidelines on the Wiley site. ## When to trigger - The author is planning a critical review of a laser-physics or photonics field and wants a fit/framing and authority check. - A primary-research result of unusually broad significance is being considered for a review-leaning venue rather than a primary-research-first one. - The author is choosing between Laser & Photonics Reviews and `optica` / `light-science-and-applications` (primary-research-first), or a tutorial venue. - The author needs the journal's review-vs-original-research bar and its desk-reject heuristics. ## Scope & topic fit - Critical reviews of laser physics: ultrafast and high-power lasers, novel gain media, laser dynamics, and frequency-comb science, with a synthesized, agenda-setting view. - Reviews of nanophotonics, metamaterials, metasurfaces, and structured light that organize a fast-moving field and identify the genuinely open questions. - Reviews of integrated and quantum photonics, nonlinear and topological photonics, and light–matter interaction with critical comparison across approaches. - Reviews of optical imaging, sensing, and biophotonics methods where a comparative, critical synthesis advances the field's understanding. - Selected original-research articles in these areas when the result is broadly significant and review-worthy, not a specialty increment. - Emerging-topic perspectives that frame a nascent photonics direction with authority and balance. ## Method & evidence bar - For reviews: the contribution is **critical synthesis** — a coherent organizing framework, honest comparison of competing approaches, and a clear statement of open problems and outlook, not an annotated bibliography. - Coverage must be balanced and current, citing the primary literature fairly and avoiding self-citation bias or omission of competing work. - Quantitative comparisons (performance tables, trend figures) should use consistent, fairly stated metrics across the works compared. - For original research: optical evidence must be quantitative and rigorous — wavelengths, efficiencies, loss, bandwidth, and uncertainty with artifact-excluding controls — and benchmarked against the state of the art. - Claims (in reviews or research) must be traceable to evidence; speculative outlook must be flagged as such and grounded in the reviewed results. - Figures, especially redrawn schematics and comparative plots, must be original or properly permissioned and must clarify rather than decorate. ## Structure & house style - The journal publishes Reviews and original Research; match the article type to the contribution and re-check current types and length on the live guide. - A review is organized around a thesis and a framework, with a strong introduction that states why the synthesis is needed now and a forward-looking outlook section. - Comparative tables and trend/landscape figures are load-bearing in reviews; they must be consistent, sourced, and genuinely informative. - Original-research articles follow standard structure with a significance-forward introduction and curated, quantitative main-text figures. - Supplementary material carries extended tables, derivations, and additional characterization; main display items must stand alone for the core argument. ## Official-submission checklist - Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Wiley anchors, then cite the current Laser & Photonics Reviews author-guidelines page you checked. - Search the live site for "Laser Photonics Reviews author guidelines" and follow the current Wiley submission system. - Re-check article types (Review vs. Research vs. Perspective), length/figure expectations, and any pre-submission inquiry or proposal step for reviews. - Confirm figure-reuse permission and copyright requirements for redrawn or reproduced figures. - Re-check data-availability, open-access options, ORCID, competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure requirements. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] A review offers a critical organizing framework and open-problem statement, not an annotated reference list. - [ ] Coverage is balanced and current, with fair citation of competing work and no self-citation skew. - [ ] Comparative tables/figures use consistent, fairly stated metrics across the works compared. - [ ] Any original-research result is review-worthy in significance and benchmarked against the state of the art. - [ ] Reused or redrawn figures have permissions and clarify rather than decorate. - [ ] The article type (Review / Research / Perspective) matches the contribution and the live limits. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A "review" that is an uncritical literature catalogue with no organizing thesis or outlook. - Narrow scope or a tutorial-level treatment with no field-shaping synthesis. - Unbalanced coverage: self-citation bias or omission of competing approaches. - Original-research submission that is a specialty increment, not review-worthy in breadth. - Comparative claims built on inconsistent or unfairly stated metrics. - Reused figures without permission or with no added analytical value. ## Re-routing decision - High-impact concise primary photonics research → `optica`. - High-impact photonics with Nature-style significance framing → `light-science-and-applications`. - Complete but narrower primary result → Optics Express / Optics Letters / Photonics Research (Optica Publishing Group specialty titles). - Broadest-significance photonics or review for a general-science audience → `nature-photonics` or `nature-communications` / `science-advances`. - Review centered on a photonic material system → `advanced-materials` / `nature-materials` review formats. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Laser & Photonics Reviews [Article type] Review / Research / Perspective [Topic tags] <2–3 closest laser/photonics subtopics> [Synthesis/significance] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```