epsl-workflow

EPSL Workflow Router (epsl-workflow)

The dispatcher for an EPSL submission. EPSL is Elsevier's flagship **letters journal for solid-Earth

and planetary science (founded 1966, ISSN 0012-821X): it wants a concise Letter carrying one

decisive, process-level advance** about the physical, chemical or mechanical workings of the Earth or

another planet. The router's first job is therefore double: locate the stage, and confirm the result

is a Letter — not a data report, not a regional case study, not two papers stapled together.

When to trigger

• Starting an EPSL manuscript and unsure where to begin
• Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
• Unsure whether the work is letters-shaped or belongs at a specialist journal
• Returning with a decision letter (route to epsl-revision-and-rebuttal)

First question: is this a Letter?

| Situation | Verdict | Route to |

|-----------|---------|----------|

| One decisive advance on a process of Earth/planetary interiors, surfaces, or atmospheres | Letter — proceed | pipeline below |

| Solid dataset, insight local to one region or one analyte | not yet letters-shaped | epsl-topic-selection to reframe or redirect |

| Two intertwined results needing two manuscripts | companion papers are discouraged at EPSL | merge to one Letter or split venues |

| Field-wide synthesis | Frontiers Paper — by editor invitation only | do not self-select; query first |

| Dispute with a published EPSL paper | Comment / Reply | epsl-review-process for etiquette |

> Length is policed: the main text (introduction through conclusions) is capped near 6,500 words —

> re-check the exact figure on the official Guide for Authors before trusting it.

Routing map (stage → skill)

Does the idea clear the frontier bar?      → epsl-topic-selection
Which literatures must the gap engage?     → epsl-literature-positioning
Will the sampling/analytical plan hold?    → epsl-study-design
Are uncertainties fully propagated?        → epsl-data-analysis
Do the exhibits work for four sub-fields?  → epsl-figures-and-tables
Data deposited FAIR, methods transparent?  → epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility
Does it read like a Letter?                → epsl-writing-style
Pitching the handling editor?              → epsl-cover-letter
How will it be judged?                     → epsl-review-process
Ready for Editorial Manager?               → epsl-submission
Decision letter arrived?                   → epsl-revision-and-rebuttal

Default order

`topic-selection → literature-positioning → study-design → data-analysis → figures-and-tables →

reporting-and-reproducibility → writing-style → cover-letter → review-process → submission →

revision-and-rebuttal`

Expect loops: geochronology and isotope work cycles design ↔ analysis until the uncertainty budget

closes; modeling work cycles design ↔ figures until the resolution tests convince.

Symptom → skill quick-routing

| User says | Underlying EPSL risk | Route to |

|-----------|----------------------|----------|

| "Is this significant enough for EPSL?" | frontier-vs-incremental desk screen | epsl-topic-selection |

| "The editor called it a regional study" | no process-level takeaway | epsl-topic-selection, epsl-literature-positioning |

| "Reviewer wants the full error budget" | analytical-transparency gap | epsl-data-analysis |

| "Where do I put 400 zircon analyses?" | data table belongs in repository/supplement | epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility |

| "I'm 2,000 words over" | letters-format cap | epsl-writing-style |

| "Which repository counts as FAIR?" | data-availability mandate | epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility |

| "Got a major revision" | rebuttal strategy | epsl-revision-and-rebuttal |

Worked micro-example (illustrative — routing a subduction-zone water paper)

A user arrives: "I have B isotopes and seismic velocities suggesting slab fluids reach the deep

arc — where do I start?" The router's pass (illustrative):

1. Frontier check → epsl-topic-selection: the claim generalizes (how water leaves slabs), so it

clears the process bar; confirm Letter shape, one advance.

1. Positioning → epsl-literature-positioning: the gap must engage geochemists and

seismologists, or one of the two reviewers will call it naive.

1. Design/analysis loop → epsl-study-design ↔ epsl-data-analysis: reference materials, blanks,

2σ external reproducibility, and the velocity-model resolution test.

1. Exhibits + deposit → epsl-figures-and-tables, epsl-reporting-and-reproducibility: one

cross-section figure carrying the argument; data to EarthChem, waveform products via IRIS/EarthScope.

1. Write → pitch → submit → epsl-writing-style → epsl-cover-letter → epsl-submission.

The router's standing job: surface the two gates the editors weigh first — process-level significance

and analytical transparency — before any prose is written.

Anti-patterns

• Treating EPSL as a general geoscience outlet — a sound regional dataset with no process insight is the classic desk decline
• Planning companion papers; EPSL explicitly discourages them
• Self-selecting "Frontiers Paper" without an editor's invitation
• Discovering the ~6,500-word main-text cap after the draft is 9,000 words
• Leaving data deposition and the methods supplement until submission week

Output format

【Stage】idea / positioning / design / analysis / exhibits / reproducibility / writing / cover-letter / review / submit / revise
【Format check】Letter / invited Frontiers / Comment-Reply / not letters-shaped
【Route to】epsl-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — geochemistry, geophysics, and geochronology tooling by sub-field
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — official Elsevier/EPSL URLs behind every fact in this pack