--- name: nature-reviews-drug-discovery description: Use when targeting Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.) or deciding whether a drug-discovery review or analysis fits this commissioned, authoritative review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. --- # Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (nature-reviews-drug-discovery) ## Journal positioning Nature Reviews Drug Discovery is a Springer Nature title and the field-defining review journal for drug discovery and development. Its defining character is authoritative, commissioned synthesis: it publishes no primary research, and the great majority of content is solicited by the editors from leaders in pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, translational medicine, and pharma R&D strategy. The journal rewards reviews and analyses that frame where a therapeutic area, target class, or development paradigm stands and where it is heading — integrating mechanism, clinical evidence, pipeline landscape, and commercial and regulatory context — rather than narrow methodological updates. Readership spans academic pharmacologists, biotech and pharma scientists, clinicians, and investors. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Because most articles are commissioned, an unsolicited submission almost always begins with a pre-submission proposal. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the Nature Reviews Drug Discovery site. ## When to trigger - The author is preparing a commissioned or proposed review on a drug target, modality, therapeutic area, or aspect of pharma R&D and names this journal as the venue. - A manuscript synthesizes the state of drug discovery or development for a field — integrating biology, clinical data, and pipeline landscape — and the author is choosing between this journal and Nature Medicine, Nature Reviews Methods Primers, or Cell Reports Medicine. - The author has a primary-research drug-discovery study and needs to be redirected, because this journal publishes no original data. - The author needs the journal's commissioning norms, scope boundaries, and desk-reject criteria before drafting a proposal. ## Scope & topic fit - Target and pathway reviews: the biology, druggability, and clinical translation of a target class — kinases, GPCRs, ion channels, epigenetic regulators, protein-protein interactions — across discovery and development. - Modality and platform reviews: small molecules, biologics, antibody-drug conjugates, cell and gene therapies, RNA therapeutics, PROTACs and targeted degraders, covering chemistry, delivery, and clinical maturity. - Therapeutic-area landscapes: oncology, immunology, neurology, metabolic and infectious disease — synthesizing mechanism, the development pipeline, and unmet need. - Drug discovery and development paradigms: AI/ML in discovery, translational biomarkers, clinical trial design innovation, drug repurposing, and the science of attrition and productivity. - Regulatory, R&D-strategy, and pipeline analyses: approval trends, the economics of development, and data-driven assessments of where investment and innovation are concentrated. - Mechanism-of-action and pharmacology reviews where the clinical-development implications are central, not incidental. ## Method & evidence bar - The central thesis must be identifiable in one or two sentences: a clear argument about the state and trajectory of a field, not an undifferentiated catalog of papers. - Claims must be evidence-based and current: clinical-stage assertions should reflect the latest trial readouts and approval status, with pipeline data sourced and dated. - Mechanistic claims must rest on the strongest available evidence; the review should weigh conflicting findings rather than report them uncritically. - Figures and tables are a core deliverable: mechanism schematics, target/pipeline landscape tables, and trial-summary tables are expected to add synthesis, not merely illustrate. - Quantitative analyses (approval rates, attrition, pipeline counts) must state data sources, cut-off dates, and methods so the numbers are reproducible. - Where the review covers clinical evidence, it should reflect the relevant reporting and evidence standards (e.g., quality of underlying CONSORT-compliant trials, registration status) when appraising trial data. ## Structure & house style - Articles are commissioned; unsolicited work normally enters through a pre-submission proposal (synopsis, outline, author expertise) that the editors evaluate before inviting a full manuscript. - Nature Reviews enforces defined length, display-item, and reference limits by article type (Review, Perspective, Analysis); re-check current limits on the live site. - The writing is authoritative and accessible to a cross-disciplinary readership; jargon is explained, and the narrative builds an argument rather than surveying exhaustively. - Display items carry much of the synthesis: schematic figures redrawn by the in-house art team, plus structured tables of targets, agents, and trials; authors supply clear source sketches and complete data. - Boxes are used for self-contained background, definitions, or methodological asides so the main text keeps its narrative line. - A structured summary and key-points list orient the reader; abstracts and headings follow the Nature Reviews template. ## 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 "Nature Reviews Drug Discovery for authors" / "submission guidelines" and follow the current Springer Nature version. - Confirm the commissioning and pre-submission-proposal process; prepare a synopsis and outline rather than a full unsolicited manuscript unless invited. - Re-check article-type definitions and the current word, display-item, and reference limits for Reviews, Perspectives, and Analyses. - Re-check competing-interests disclosure (especially industry and consulting ties), funding statements, and AI-use disclosure; confirm any data-source citation requirements for pipeline/quantitative content. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence — the central argument about the field's state and trajectory, and why the readership needs it now. - [ ] The work is a review/analysis, not primary research; no original experimental data are being reported as the contribution. - [ ] A pre-submission proposal is prepared (or a commission is in hand) rather than an unsolicited full manuscript. - [ ] Clinical and pipeline claims are current, sourced, and dated; quantitative figures state methods and cut-off dates. - [ ] Display items are planned as synthesis (landscape/trial tables, mechanism schematics) with complete underlying data for the art team. - [ ] Competing interests, especially industry relationships, are fully disclosed. ## Common desk-reject triggers - A primary-research manuscript reporting original experimental or clinical data, which the journal does not publish. - An unsolicited full review submitted without a pre-submission proposal or editorial invitation. - An undifferentiated literature survey with no central argument about where the field stands or is heading. - A narrow, specialist update of interest only to a sub-field, lacking the cross-disciplinary significance the readership expects. - Pipeline or quantitative claims without sourced, dated data, or clinical assertions that ignore the latest trial readouts and approvals. ## Re-routing decision - Primary clinical or translational research with original data on a therapy: Nature Medicine (`nature-medicine`). - A methods-focused, reproducible how-to review of a discovery or development technique: Nature Reviews Methods Primers (`nature-reviews-methods-primers`). - Primary translational or early-clinical drug studies in a medicine-focused venue: Cell Reports Medicine (`cell-reports-medicine`). - A more specialist or mechanistic review of narrower scope: a society or subfield review journal (e.g., a pharmacology- or oncology-specific review title). ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Nature Reviews Drug Discovery [Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics> [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```