Reviews Of Geophysics

Reviews of Geophysics (reviews-of-geophysics)

Journal positioning

Reviews of Geophysics is an American Geophysical Union (AGU) journal published by Wiley, and it is among the highest-impact venues in the Earth and space sciences. Its defining character is authority and synthesis: the journal publishes long-form, comprehensive review articles that survey the state of knowledge across a major geophysical topic, integrate disparate subdisciplines, and chart the open questions that will define a field for years. It does not publish primary research. Many articles are invited, and unsolicited proposals are typically vetted before a full manuscript is encouraged. The journal rewards reviews that are genuinely synthetic and forward-looking — not annotated bibliographies — and that are accessible to readers across the breadth of AGU's community. Readership is the entire Earth and space science community plus advanced students entering a field. 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 Reviews of Geophysics AGU/Wiley site.

When to trigger

• The author proposes an authoritative, comprehensive review across a major Earth or space science topic and names Reviews of Geophysics.
• A team with recognized standing in a field wants to synthesize its state and define open questions for a broad geoscience readership.
• An author is choosing between Reviews of Geophysics and a Nature Reviews family venue for a major synthesis.
• The author needs the journal's invited/vetted-proposal expectation, synthesis bar, and desk-reject criteria before committing to a full draft.

Scope & topic fit

• Comprehensive syntheses across any AGU domain: atmospheric and climate science, oceanography, cryosphere, hydrology, solid earth, geodesy, biogeosciences, space physics, and planetary science.
• Cross-disciplinary integration: reviews that connect previously separate subfields (e.g., land-atmosphere-ocean coupling, deep-earth to surface processes, solar-terrestrial chains).
• Emerging fields or rapidly moving topics where an authoritative state-of-the-art synthesis is needed to orient the community.
• Methodological or observational-paradigm reviews that survey how a class of techniques has reshaped a field and where it is heading.
• Quantitative meta-syntheses that consolidate dispersed evidence into a coherent picture with identified uncertainties and research frontiers.
• Reviews that explicitly frame the major open questions and a forward agenda, not merely past results.

Method & evidence bar

• The review must be synthetic, not enumerative: it must integrate and critically evaluate the literature, reconcile conflicting findings, and articulate consensus and controversy.
• Authoritativeness is expected: comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature with balanced, fair treatment of competing schools of thought.
• Quantitative synthesis (compiled datasets, harmonized estimates, comparison tables) strengthens a review where the field allows it; assumptions and uncertainties must be stated.
• The forward-looking section must be substantive: specific open questions, testable hypotheses, and observational or modeling needs.
• Any compiled data products or code should be deposited in an AGU-compliant FAIR repository with persistent identifiers.
• Accessibility is part of the evidence bar: the synthesis must be intelligible to geoscientists outside the immediate subfield.

Structure & house style

• Articles are long-form and comprehensive; there is no short-format option — re-check current length expectations and figure conventions on the live site.
• The structure is thematic rather than IMRaD: an introduction that frames the field's significance, thematic sections that synthesize sub-areas, and a forward-looking synthesis of open questions.
• Figures are often original schematic syntheses, harmonized data compilations, and conceptual diagrams that consolidate the field; high production quality is expected.
• Extensive, current, and balanced referencing is required; the reference list itself is a resource for the community.
• A plain-language summary is required and must convey the significance to non-specialists.
• Writing must be authoritative yet accessible, defining terms and orienting readers from adjacent disciplines.