---
name: pnasnexus-fit
description: Use before any writing — as the first gate — to stress-test whether a result fits PNAS Nexus — high-quality, broadly significant, multidisciplinary research across biological/health/medical, physical sciences & engineering, and social & political sciences — and to make the realistic call between PNAS Nexus, flagship PNAS, and a field journal, including the PNAS-to-PNAS-Nexus transfer route.
---

# Scope & Significance Fit (pnasnexus-fit)

## Why this is skill #1

PNAS Nexus is the **gold open-access sibling journal of PNAS**, published by Oxford University Press for the National Academy of Sciences. It publishes **high-quality original research across the biological, medical, physical, social, and political sciences, and engineering and mathematics**, with an explicit mission of **promoting collaboration across diverse fields**. Run this before investing in prose — and use it for the specific, common decision: **"PNAS declined us; should we take the transfer to PNAS Nexus?"**

> **Positioning, stated honestly.** The official materials describe PNAS Nexus as a **complementary, broad-scope sibling** to PNAS — differentiated by **wider, cross-disciplinary scope and a broader editorial base** (members of the NAS, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine, plus select nonmembers). They do **not** brand it as a "lower-tier" or "sound-science-only" outlet. Do not tell an author it is "where you settle" — it has a real, broad, quality bar. (See [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md).)

## When to trigger

- Before drafting, to decide whether PNAS Nexus is the right venue.
- **After a PNAS decline/transfer offer**, to judge whether to accept the PNAS Nexus transfer.
- When choosing among flagship PNAS, PNAS Nexus, and a strong field journal.
- When the work is genuinely **multi/interdisciplinary** and no single field journal fits.
- When a co-author is an NAS member and asks whether they can "contribute" the paper (they **cannot** at PNAS Nexus — see `pnasnexus-openaccess`).

## The bar, and how it differs from flagship PNAS

| Bar / situation | Venue |
|-----------------|-------|
| Top, decisive, general-interest discovery you want in the flagship | **flagship PNAS** (use the `pnas-skills` pack; PNAS Nexus is a strong sibling/fallback) |
| High-quality, broadly significant, often **cross-disciplinary** research a general scientific audience values | **PNAS Nexus** |
| Sound work declined by PNAS **for reasons other than soundness/technical merit** | **PNAS Nexus via transfer** (reviews carry over) |
| Deep but of interest mainly to one subfield | top **field journal** |

PNAS Nexus rewards work whose **lesson travels across fields** — its whole identity is cross-disciplinary breadth. A result that only a single subfield cares about is a weaker fit even if it is excellent.

## The PNAS → PNAS Nexus transfer route (a real path in)

- If PNAS declines a manuscript, the authors **may be offered transfer** into the PNAS portfolio, including PNAS Nexus.
- **Prior PNAS reviews transfer with the manuscript** and can reduce the number of new reviews needed.
- The qualifier matters: it is framed for work declined **"for reasons other than soundness or technical merit."** If PNAS reviewers found the science *unsound*, transfer will not rescue it — fix the science first.
- Transfer is **not a guarantee of acceptance**; the PNAS Nexus editors assess independently. Author consent is required.

> Decision rule: if the PNAS decline was about **fit/scope/priority** (not rigor), the transfer is usually worth accepting — the carried-over reviews are an asset. If the decline was about **validity**, treat it as a normal "fix the science" problem, not a venue problem.

## The cross-disciplinary significance test

Imagine a reader from a **different PNAS Nexus division** — e.g., an engineer reading a social-science paper, a health-sciences reader reading a physics paper. The paper passes if that reader would say *"I understand why this matters and I'd want to know about it."* The journal's three divisions are:

1. **Biological, Health, and Medical Sciences**
2. **Physical Sciences and Engineering**
3. **Social and Political Sciences**

Write for that cross-division reader — the journal explicitly exists to "promote collaboration across diverse fields."

## Significance ladder (weak → strong)

1. **Confirms** an expected result in one system. (Weak — field journal.)
2. **Extends** a known effect to a new system/scale with clear added value. (Borderline — PNAS Nexus if the lesson generalizes.)
3. **Resolves** a question a broad community cares about. (Strong — solid PNAS Nexus.)
4. **Reveals** a previously unknown phenomenon, mechanism, or capability. (Strong — PNAS Nexus or flagship PNAS.)
5. **Overturns** a widely held assumption with decisive evidence. (Strongest — consider flagship PNAS first.)

Rungs 2–4 are the PNAS Nexus sweet spot, especially when the contribution is **cross-disciplinary**.

## Article-type triage (then confirm in `pnasnexus-writing`)

- **Full study, original research** → **Research Report** (the default; preferred 6 pp / max 12).
- **Short, complete, single-point study** → **Brief Report** (≤3 pp).
- **Pre-results, hypothesis-driven study you want reviewed before data collection** → **Registered Report** (Stage 1, then Stage 2).
- **Forward-looking opinion grounded in evidence** → **Perspective** (≤10 pp; may be unsolicited).
- **Synthesis of a field** → **Review** (≤10 pp; may be unsolicited).

## Fatal weak-fit triggers

- The advance is **incremental** over the authors' own prior paper with no general lesson.
- The claim is **narrow and stays narrow** ("in our system, under our conditions…") with no cross-field reach.
- The "broad/interdisciplinary implication" is **asserted, not demonstrated**.
- **Over-claiming**: the conclusion outruns the evidence.
- The PNAS decline was for **unsound science** — transfer will not fix that.

## Output format

```
【Significance rung】 1–5 + one-line justification
【Cross-division reader test】 pass / borderline / fail (which other-division reader cares, and why)
【PNAS Nexus division (likely)】 Biological-Health-Medical / Physical-Engineering / Social-Political
【Article type (likely)】 Research Report / Brief Report / Registered Report / Perspective / Review
【Transfer from PNAS?】 N/A | yes (decline was fit/priority, reviews carry over) | no (decline was soundness — fix science)
【Fatal triggers present】 [...]
【Recommended venue】 flagship PNAS / PNAS Nexus / field journal
【The single sentence of broad, cross-field significance】 "..."
【Next】 pnasnexus-openaccess (if PNAS Nexus) | reconsider venue (if fail)
```

## Anti-patterns

- **Do not** treat PNAS Nexus as merely "the journal you settle for" — it has a real, broad bar.
- **Do not** rationalize a single-subfield result into "interdisciplinary significance" with adjectives.
- **Do not** assume a PNAS transfer guarantees acceptance, or that it can rescue unsound science.
- **Do not** confuse technical difficulty with significance — hard ≠ broadly important.
- **Do not** plan around an NAS-member "Contributed" route — PNAS Nexus has none (`pnasnexus-openaccess`).