progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (Elsevier) is a review journal: it publishes authoritative, comprehensive, critical reviews in energy and combustion science, not primary research. Its articles are long, scholarly syntheses that map a field, weigh conflicting evidence, expose open problems, and set the agenda for future work — frequently invited or proposed in advance. The single most common misfit is a primary-research manuscript (new experiments or one model) submitted as if it were a review; another is a shallow literature survey that catalogs papers without critical judgment. A submission succeeds only if its authors can credibly claim field-level authority and deliver a genuinely critical, integrative account. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Guide for Authors on the Elsevier site and any pre-submission/proposal expectations.
is assessing whether it meets this venue's authority and depth bar.
agenda-setting synthesis — or re-routed because it is in fact primary research.
combustion journal, or between it and a shorter perspective/mini-review elsewhere.
desk-reject heuristics.
combustion, ignition, pollutant formation, soot, and combustion diagnostics.
engines, gas turbines, and combustion-based power systems.
and combustion processes.
is timely and absent from the literature.
coherent, judgment-bearing picture.
judge the literature — not merely summarize it paper by paper.
including conflicting results, must be covered and weighed against evidence.
and ideally propose a roadmap or unifying framework.
data, and controversies, with balanced rather than self-promotional citation.
plots) rather than reproduce single-study results uncritically.
builds an argument across sub-topics, and a forward-looking outlook — re-check current article-type and length expectations on the live guide.
narrative must have a thesis, not just coverage.
integrate disparate findings strengthen the contribution.
be balanced and current, with clear attribution.
../../resources/source-basis.md and../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Progress in Energy and Combustion Science Guide for Authors page you checked.
and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
types and length expectations for reviews.
published figures.
requirements.
instructions win.
applied-energy.journal-of-power-sources.energy-storage-materials.nature-energy or joule (different format/selectivity; re-check).[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest energy/combustion subtopics>
[Review type] critical synthesis / agenda-setting review (NOT primary research)
[Authority/scope] <is field-level authority + defined scope credible?>
[Synthesis bar] <does it weigh conflicting evidence and set a forward agenda?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal/invitation / length / figure permissions / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if primary research or out of scope, a better-matched venue>~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.