Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Submission Guide

The journal publishes only comprehensive review articles that synthesize broad areas of earth and planetary science research. Think "The State of Climate Modeling" or "Planetary Formation Mechanisms" - not "Recent Advances in Zircon Geochronology of the Western Alps."

Each review covers research across multiple research groups, institutions, and methodological approaches. The editorial board expects reviews that define the current state of major subfields and project future research directions. They don't want literature surveys or opinion pieces disguised as reviews.

The scope spans geophysics, geology, atmospheric science, oceanography, planetary science, and astrobiology. But reviews must address questions that matter across multiple subdisciplines. A review on earthquake prediction mechanisms might cover seismology, rock mechanics, statistical modeling, and geodesy - bringing together research communities that don't always talk to each other.

Reviews often combine data from dozens of studies into new synthetic visualizations; figures count toward the assigned article length. The journal expects original analysis, not just compilation. You're not just summarizing what others found - you're identifying patterns, resolving contradictions, and proposing new frameworks that advance the field.

A common structure is an introduction defining scope and importance, major sections covering different aspects or time periods, a synthesis section identifying gaps and future directions, and conclusions that propose specific research priorities; Annual Reviews also offers optional Summary Points and Future Issues lists. The editorial board rejects reviews that read like extended literature surveys without clear synthesis or forward-looking analysis.

The Editorial Committees invite review articles on salient topics by highly qualified authors; the invitation is issued after a Committee meeting, with a submission date that is generally 9 to 12 months later. Committees do not wait for outside authors to contact them.

Annual Reviews says selections are based on the scholarly reputation, academic achievements, and publication records of potential authors, so a visible publication record in the topic is the most direct evidence you can offer.

But you can put a topic forward. Send an email to volunteerproposals@annualreviews.org with the journal named in the subject line, a proposed title, a list of authors, links to author CVs, an approximately 150-word abstract, and a few sentences explaining why the topic needs a literature review, with no attachments. Annual Reviews does not say that a proposal speeds anything up: many committees consider proposals at annual meetings, so feedback can take up to nearly a year.

For this journal the route Annual Reviews names is the emailed proposal. It singles out the Annual Review of Entomology as the one journal where you are encouraged to reach out to a current Editorial Committee Member first, so an informal approach to a Committee Member is not the published route here.

A proposal works best when you can demonstrate that your review would fill a clear gap. Point to recent major discoveries, new datasets, or emerging controversies that need synthesis. The board responds well to proposals that address timely questions where your expertise intersects with broader community needs.

Reviews are substantial and expected to feel comprehensive. The manuscript usually needs enough space, references, figures, and synthesis to cover a mature literature without becoming a loose literature dump.

Structure your review with clear section headings and subheadings. Annual Reviews asks for an abstract of 150 words maximum, as many as 6 keywords and clearly formatted headings; the length set in your invitation letter governs how much space each section gets.

Citations follow the Annual Reviews name-and-year (Harvard) style, with article titles and inclusive page numbers in the Literature Cited; the author handbook gives the format. Annual Reviews provides LaTeX and EndNote style files, and the submission PDF should be double spaced in 12-point type.

Figures require special attention because Annual Review articles are heavily illustrated. Each figure needs publication-quality resolution (300 DPI minimum for photos, vector format for line graphs and diagrams). Figure captions should be self-contained with enough detail that readers understand the main point without reading the text. Plan figures and tables within the length set in your invitation letter, since the length includes them.

Annual Reviews accepts figures reused from other sources, provided you obtain permission and pay any associated fees before submitting, but original figures that serve your synthetic argument are stronger. You can use data from other studies, but create new visualizations that serve your synthetic argument. Figures that combine datasets from multiple sources can show patterns not visible in individual studies.

Mathematical notation follows specific style guidelines available in the Annualreviews author instructions. Equations should be numbered sequentially and defined clearly. Focus on key equations that illuminate physical principles rather than detailed mathematical treatments.

Annual Reviews strongly encourages color in illustrations and prints color figures at no cost to the author. Include scale bars on all maps and microscopy images. Label all axes clearly with units specified.

How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Science covers similar formatting requirements that apply across major scientific journals. Follow templates precisely - it signals attention to detail that editors expect from comprehensive reviews.

Before submitting to Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, an Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences manuscript fit check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Article length is set per article in the invitation letter and includes figures and tables; the reference maximum comes from your Production Editor. A proposal is an email to volunteerproposals@annualreviews.org with the journal named in the subject line, a proposed title, a list of authors, links to author CVs, an approximately 150-word abstract, and a few sentences explaining why the topic needs a literature review, with no attachments.

• Day 0: Proposal email. The proposal is emailed to volunteerproposals@annualreviews.org, and Annual Reviews directs it to the journal named in the subject line.

• Up to nearly a year: Editorial Committee proposal read. Many Editorial Committees consider proposals at their annual meetings, so feedback can take up to nearly a year. Annual Reviews says selections are based on the scholarly reputation, academic achievements, and publication records of potential authors.

• Invitation and writing window: For accepted proposals, an invitation is issued after the Committee meeting, with a submission date that is generally 9 to 12 months later.

• Review: One or more Editorial Committee Members and/or an external reviewer chosen by the Committee review the article; reviewer comments are generally sent to authors within three months of submission.

• Revision, production and publication: After the reviewer accepts the revised article it is copyedited (Annual Reviews endeavors to send the copyedited article within six months of submission), the typeset proof is ready about 2 weeks after the compositor receives the final text and figures, and publication is approximately 10 months after the submission date, in the annual volume.

Invited review journals still use peer review, and the standard is high. The most common pressure points are usually:

• whether the scope is broad enough but still coherent

• whether the review offers synthesis rather than chronology

• whether it identifies the real unresolved questions in the field

• whether the forward-looking section is specific enough to influence future work

That means revisions are often structural rather than cosmetic. Editors are usually trying to make the article more useful as a field-defining review, not just cleaner as prose.

Publication timing can also be shaped by the journal's broader volume planning. That is another reason to think in terms of editorial fit and topic timing rather than expecting a simple research-journal cadence.

During production, the copyeditor queries the text and the journal's Illustration Editor adjusts figures to house style. Science Advances Submission Process: Complete Timeline & What to Expect describes similar production timelines that apply across high-impact journals.

In our review of manuscripts targeting Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

These patterns are Manusights' reading, not desk-rejection triggers documented by Annual Reviews, which publishes no such list; addressing them before an invitation or proposal advances is the practical goal.

Invitation absent when submitting a standalone manuscript

The Annual Reviews author guidelines state that its literature reviews are written upon invitation from an Editorial Committee. In our pre-submission review work, we see many failed approaches involve authors submitting full review manuscripts without prior editorial contact or an invitation. Annual Reviews says unsolicited articles submitted without prior agreement are not considered for publication.

Scope too broad or too narrow for the Annual Reviews synthesis format

We also often find many rejected proposals or early returns involve scope problems: reviews that try to cover an entire earth science discipline in limited space, or reviews that focus only on one narrow technique without synthesizing a recognizable geoscience subfield. Editors consistently reject reviews where the scope cannot be positioned as the authoritative synthesis of a clearly bounded and important area of earth or planetary science.

Literature coverage weighted too heavily toward older earth science work

A related pattern is that many submissions show reference lists weighted too heavily toward foundational older literature without sufficient engagement with advances from the past three to five years. Annual Reviews editors consistently flag manuscripts where coverage of recent developments is thin, because earth and planetary science subfields evolve quickly and reviewers expect current command of the field.

Check literature coverage weighted too heavily toward older earth science work before submitting to Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences →

Conclusions lacking specific testable research priorities for the field

A related pattern is that many manuscripts present conclusions that summarize what was already said in the body rather than identifying specific, testable research directions and open questions. Editors consistently reject reviews where the future-directions discussion offers only vague guidance, because the function of the conclusions in this journal is to define the next wave of research clearly enough for other scientists to act on it.

Check conclusions lacking specific testable research priorities for the field before submitting to Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences →

Review organized chronologically rather than around research questions

A related pattern is that many review submissions organize content by publication date or research group rather than by concept, phenomenon, or research question. Editors consistently flag chronological organization as a sign that the synthesis is shallow, because a publication-date structure typically produces a literature timeline rather than an organized understanding of the earth or planetary science field.

The Annual Reviews publication process and timeline and Clarivate 2026 JCR release bibliometric data provide benchmarks when planning your submission timeline.

Before submitting to Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, an Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences submission readiness check identifies whether your invitation status, scope, literature coverage, and synthesis depth meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Check review organized chronologically rather than around research questions before submitting to Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences →

Official and generic pages for annual review of earth and planetary sciences submission guide usually explain the journal scope or link to Annual Reviews author resources. Official publisher guidance does not tell authors whether their proposed review is mature enough, authoritative enough, and timed well enough for an invitation-led Annual Reviews editorial triage pattern.

How this page was created: across the manuscripts we review for Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, a recurring failure pattern stands out: the manuscript is comprehensive, but the author team has not proven why this synthesis should enter an editorial committee's planned volume now.

Source limitations: this page uses public Annual Reviews author resources, official publisher guidance, public journal scope pages, and anonymized Manusights pre-submission review patterns. We did not inspect private Annual Reviews committee planning records.

The practical author value is this: the guide focuses on what editors screen for before an invitation or proposal advances, especially whether the topic has a clear field-level synthesis problem, a credible author team, and a proposal that weighs the pros and cons of nearby review venues.

Evidence basis: we reviewed official-source facts, public journal guidance, and anonymized proposal patterns. The method is not a live portal test. The practical alternatives are Reviews of Geophysics, Nature Geoscience, Earth and Planetary Science Letters review-style formats, or a narrower specialty review journal when the concept is too local.

• Earth-Science Reviews Under Review status

• Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Under Review status

Neighbouring journals in the same field can have very different appetites. Find out if Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. before I reformat fits my abstract.