pnas-workflow

PNAS Workflow Router (pnas-workflow)

Overview

This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill. It tells you **which pnas- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).

PNAS publishes across three broad divisions — Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciences — and every research article is filed under one of them plus a minor subject area (pnas-writing). Two things make PNAS unlike Science or Nature and reshape the workflow: the submission track decision (Direct vs Contributed by an NAS member — pnas-track) and the mandatory Significance Statement (pnas-significance). Settle the track early; it changes how the paper is handled and reviewed.

When to trigger

• "What should I do next with this draft?"
• A draft arrives and you must diagnose the current bottleneck.
• The user is unsure whether to use Direct or Contributed submission.
• Reviews arrive from PNAS and you need to switch into rebuttal mode.

The single most important gate

PNAS is selective but more accepting than Science or Nature: it values solid, important science, not only the flashiest top-1% result. The first question is still "is this broadly significant and high-quality enough for a general scientific readership?" — but a strong, rigorous, important paper that is not the splashiest discovery of the year still has a real home here. Route to pnas-fit first, always; it also handles the realistic step-down from Science/Nature.

Routing table

| Current symptom | Next skill |

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

| Not sure the result is broad/significant enough, or stepping down from Science/Nature | pnas-fit |

| Unsure whether to use Direct or Contributed (NAS-member) submission | pnas-track |

| No Significance Statement, or it just restates the abstract | pnas-significance |

| Abstract too long/narrow; conflated with significance statement | pnas-abstract |

| Structure unclear; Methods misplaced; no classification/keywords | pnas-writing |

| Figures over budget; sizing/fonts/colors non-compliant | pnas-figures |

| Stats under-reported; n/error bars/tests unclear; not reproducible | pnas-statistics |

| No data/code availability plan or deposition | pnas-data |

| References not in PNAS numbered style | pnas-citation |

| About to submit; need a preflight checklist + cover letter | pnas-submission |

| Received reviews / a revision decision | pnas-rebuttal |

Default order

1. pnas-fit — clear the broad-significance bar; confirm PNAS is the right venue
2. pnas-track — pick Direct vs Contributed (do this early; it shapes handling)
3. pnas-writing — structure, length, classification + keywords, Methods placement
4. pnas-figures — finalize display items within budget
5. pnas-statistics — rigor & reproducibility reporting
6. pnas-data — data / code availability + deposition
7. pnas-significance — the ≤120-word Significance Statement (high-value)
8. pnas-abstract — ≤250-word self-contained abstract (late polish)
9. pnas-citation — PNAS numbered reference style (late polish)
10. pnas-submission — preflight + cover letter
11. pnas-rebuttal — after review

> pnas-significance, pnas-abstract, and pnas-citation are late-stage polish — but the Significance Statement is high-value and editor-facing, so do not leave it to the last minute. Draft it as soon as the claim is locked.

Decision shortcuts

• "Is this PNAS-level, or should it go to a field journal / up to Science?" → pnas-fit
• "A co-author is an NAS member and offered to communicate the paper" → pnas-track
• "I have an abstract but no Significance Statement" → pnas-significance
• "My significance statement is just the abstract again" → pnas-significance
• "Where do Materials and Methods go?" → pnas-writing (PNAS keeps them in the main text)
• "What classification do I file under?" → pnas-writing
• "No accession numbers / no code repo" → pnas-data

How PNAS differs from Science and Nature

• More accepting: PNAS publishes solid, important, broadly significant work across Biological/Physical/Social Sciences — a sound realistic target when a paper is strong but not the single splashiest result Science/Nature chase. pnas-fit makes the step-down call.
• Submission tracks: PNAS uniquely offers Direct Submission (standard, editor-assigned, peer reviewed) and Contributed Submission (an NAS member communicates their own paper and arranges reviewers, limited to a few per member per year). The older Prearranged Editor option and the discontinued "Communicated" track are covered in pnas-track. No Science/Nature equivalent.
• Significance Statement: PNAS requires a separate ≤120-word Significance Statement written for a broad scientific reader — not Science's one-sentence summary, not Nature's summary paragraph. See pnas-significance.
• Abstract: PNAS abstracts run to ~250 words — do not copy Science's ≤125-word abstract or one-sentence summary.
• Methods: PNAS keeps a Materials and Methods section in the main text (unlike Science Reports / Cell, which push methods elsewhere).

Manuscript-stage routing snapshot

Copy this manifest into your working notes and update the status as each pnas-* skill clears. It mirrors the default order above and the PNAS-specific facts this router tracks — the three submission tracks, the ≤120-word Significance Statement, the ~250-word abstract, and the general-scientific-readership bar. Nothing here is a live editorial rule; confirm current caps in the author guidelines.

pnas_manuscript_snapshot:
  divisions: [Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences]
  cross_division_reader_test: pending   # pass | borderline | fail
  significance_bar: high-quality + broadly significant (not only the flashiest)

  submission_track:
    choice: undecided                   # Direct | Contributed | Prearranged Editor
    direct:      { editor_assigned: true,  suggested_reviewers_ready: false }
    contributed: { nas_member: false, within_annual_quota: null, reviewers_secured: 0 }
    decide_by: early                    # track shapes handling + reviewer choice

  stage_gates:
    - skill: pnas-fit           # step 1: clear the broad-significance bar
      status: not_started       # not_started | in_progress | cleared
    - skill: pnas-track         # step 2: Direct vs Contributed (decide early)
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-writing       # step 3: structure, classification, Methods in-text
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-figures       # step 4: display items within budget
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-statistics    # step 5: rigor + reproducibility reporting
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-data          # step 6: data/code availability + deposition
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-significance  # step 7: Significance Statement (<=120 words, editor-facing)
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-abstract      # step 8: self-contained abstract (~250 words)
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-citation      # step 9: PNAS numbered reference style
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-submission    # step 10: preflight + cover letter -> GO/NO-GO
      status: not_started
    - skill: pnas-rebuttal      # step 11: after review
      status: not_started

  key_artifacts:
    significance_statement: { required: true,  max_words: 120, distinct_from_abstract: null }
    abstract:               { required: true,  approx_words: 250, single_paragraph: true }
    materials_and_methods:  { location: main-text }

  verdict: NO-GO                        # flips to GO only when pnas-submission clears

Anti-patterns

• Do not skip pnas-fit and start polishing prose.
• Do not decide the track at the end — it shapes editor handling and reviewer choice (pnas-track).
• Do not treat the Significance Statement as a formality bolted on at submission.
• Do not generate a rebuttal before the main text is actually revised.