atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics description: Use when targeting Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) or deciding whether an atmospheric-composition manuscript fits this open-access, interactive-peer-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics)

Journal positioning

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is a European Geosciences Union (EGU) journal published by Copernicus, and it is a leading venue for research on the Earth's atmosphere — its composition, chemistry, aerosols, clouds, dynamics, and the physical processes that govern them. Its defining character is open access combined with interactive public peer review: manuscripts are first posted as discussion papers (ACPD) and undergo open, citable, public commentary alongside designated referees before final acceptance. The journal rewards rigorous, well-documented atmospheric science with clear methodological transparency, and the open-review model places a premium on completeness, reproducibility, and the ability to withstand public scrutiny. It values full-length, thorough treatments rather than short rapid communications. Readership is the international atmospheric-science community. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the ACP/EGU/Copernicus site.

When to trigger

The author names ACP as the target venue for a thorough atmospheric-composition, aerosol, cloud, chemistry, or dynamics study.
A manuscript is rigorous and complete enough to withstand open public peer review, and the author values open access and the interactive ACPD model.
A paper needs full-length space to document methods, data, and analysis thoroughly rather than a short rapid communication.
The author needs ACP's interactive-review expectations, scope boundaries, and desk-reject criteria before submission.

Scope & topic fit

Atmospheric composition and chemistry: gas-phase and multiphase chemistry, trace gases, oxidants, and chemical mechanisms in the troposphere and stratosphere.
Aerosols: sources, formation, microphysics, optical and chemical properties, and aerosol-radiation interactions.
Clouds and aerosol-cloud interactions: microphysics, cloud processes, and their role in the climate system.
Atmospheric dynamics and transport: circulation, mixing, boundary-layer processes, and their coupling to composition.
Measurement and remote-sensing studies of atmospheric composition, including instrument-based field and laboratory campaigns.
Modeling studies — process, regional, and global — of atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, clouds, and dynamics with rigorous evaluation.

Method & evidence bar

The contribution must be rigorous and complete; because review is public, methods, data, and analysis must be documented thoroughly enough to withstand open scrutiny.
Measurement studies need full instrument characterization, calibration, uncertainty quantification, and treatment of artifacts and biases.
Modeling studies need clear configuration, evaluation against observations, sensitivity analyses, and honest discussion of structural uncertainty.
Laboratory studies need reproducible conditions, error analysis, and clear linkage to atmospheric relevance.
Data and code must be deposited in a FAIR-compliant repository with persistent identifiers, consistent with Copernicus open-data policy; availability statements are mandatory.
Statistical claims about trends, correlations, or differences must account for atmospheric variability and autocorrelation.

Structure & house style

ACP uses a full-length IMRaD format suited to thorough documentation; re-check current length and figure conventions on the live site.
The manuscript is first published as an ACPD discussion paper and undergoes interactive public review; authors must be prepared to respond to public comments and designated referees in the open.
The introduction situates the work in the atmospheric-science literature and states the scientific question; methods are detailed and reproducible.
Figures and tables must be efficient and publication-quality; supplementary material carries extended data, additional analyses, and instrument details.
The abstract is unstructured and must convey the question, approach, and key findings.
Copernicus formatting, reference style, and code/data availability sections must be followed.

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 "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics submission guidelines" and follow the current EGU/Copernicus version.
Re-check the interactive public peer-review (ACPD) process and the obligations it places on authors during open discussion.
Re-check current length and figure conventions, Copernicus manuscript-preparation requirements, and supplementary-material conventions.
Re-check the FAIR data and code availability policy and accepted repositories; confirm article-processing-charge (APC) and open-access licensing terms, competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure.
If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

One sentence — the atmospheric-science question answered and why the result matters.
The manuscript is complete and rigorous enough to withstand open public peer review in ACPD.
Measurements have full characterization, calibration, and uncertainty; models are evaluated against observations with sensitivity analysis.
Methods and data are documented thoroughly enough for reproducibility under public scrutiny.
Data and code are deposited in a FAIR repository with persistent identifiers; availability statements are ready.
APC, open-access licensing, and Copernicus formatting requirements are understood and prepared.

Common desk-reject triggers

A study outside atmospheric composition, aerosols, clouds, chemistry, or dynamics, or a regional case without broader process insight.
An incomplete or insufficiently documented manuscript that could not withstand open public review.
Measurement work lacking instrument characterization, calibration, or uncertainty quantification.
Modeling work without evaluation against observations or treatment of structural uncertainty.
A missing or non-compliant FAIR data/code availability statement, or failure to meet Copernicus open-access and formatting requirements.

Re-routing decision

A short, high-impact atmospheric finding that does not need full-length documentation: geophysical-research-letters.
A full-length atmospheric study better matched to the AGU community: journal-of-geophysical-research-atmospheres.
A higher-impact, broader-reach atmospheric or climate result with cross-disciplinary significance: nature-geoscience.
An authoritative invited review of an atmospheric topic rather than primary research: reviews-of-geophysics.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is the study rigorous, complete, and well-documented enough to withstand open public peer review, with full characterization and uncertainty?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <interactive ACPD review process / length & Copernicus formatting / FAIR data-code deposition / APC & open-access licensing / disclosure>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>