---
name: sci-fit
description: Use first, before any writing, to stress-test whether a result clears Science's desk-reject filter — broad significance and general interest across disciplines. Decides Science vs Science Advances vs a specialist journal.
---

# Scope & Significance Fit (sci-fit)

## Why this is skill #1

Science triages **most submissions to rejection without external review**. The gate is not "is it correct" — it is **"is it of broad significance and interest to a general scientific readership."** A flawless specialist result is desk-rejected if only specialists would care. Run this before investing in prose.

## When to trigger

- Before drafting, to decide if Science is even the right venue.
- When a co-author says "this is a Science paper" and you need a sober second opinion.
- When choosing between Science, Science Advances, Nature, PNAS, and a top field journal.

## The general-interest test (three independent readers)

Imagine three editors from **different** fields (e.g., a climate scientist, a cell biologist, a condensed-matter physicist). The paper passes only if **at least two** would say "I would want to read this and I could explain why it matters to my students."

- One field excited + two indifferent → specialist journal, not Science.
- Methodologically impressive but incremental conclusion → likely desk reject.
- Conclusion changes how a broad community thinks/acts → strong fit.

## 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. (Borderline — Advances/PNAS.)
3. **Resolves** a standing controversy the broad community knows about. (Strong.)
4. **Reveals** a previously unknown phenomenon, mechanism, or capability. (Strong.)
5. **Overturns** a widely held assumption with decisive evidence. (Strongest.)

If you cannot place the work at rung 3+, Science is a long shot — be honest with the user and name the realistic target.

## Fatal desk-reject triggers

- The advance is **incremental** over the authors' own prior paper.
- The claim is **narrow** ("in our mouse line, under our conditions…") with no general lesson.
- The "broad implication" is **asserted, not demonstrated** (a hand-wave in the last paragraph).
- **Over-claiming**: conclusion outruns the evidence (a top reason for both desk and post-review rejection).
- Timeliness mismatch: a third group is about to publish the same thing and you have no distinguishing advance.

## Venue routing

| Situation                                                        | Recommend              |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Rung 4–5, decisive, broad, timely                               | **Science** (Report/Article) |
| Solid, broad-ish, but not top-1% novelty                        | **Science Advances** / **PNAS** |
| Deep but specialist                                             | top **field journal**  |
| Clinical/medical with patient outcomes                          | **NEJM / Lancet** (use those packs) |
| Strong but needs more mechanism to be decisive                  | add experiments before submitting |

## Output format

```
【Significance rung】 1–5 + one-line justification
【General-interest test】 pass / borderline / fail (which 2 of 3 readers care, and why)
【Fatal triggers present】 [...]
【Recommended venue】 Science / Science Advances / PNAS / field journal / NEJM-Lancet
【If staying with Science, the single sentence of broad significance】 "..."
【Next】 sci-framing (if pass) | reconsider venue (if fail)
```

## Anti-patterns

- **Do not** rationalize a specialist result into "broad significance" with adjectives. Editors discount adjectives.
- **Do not** confuse technical difficulty with significance — hard ≠ important.
- **Do not** let sunk cost ("we already did the work") drive the venue decision.