Use when deciding whether a molecular / translational oncology study belongs in Cancer Cell (Cell Press) before investing in full submission. Diagnoses mechanism + translational-relevance fit; it does not design experiments or edit prose.
Scanned 6/4/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill cc-scope-fit --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Cc Scope Fit?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-cc-scope-fit)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: cc-scope-fit
description: Use when deciding whether a molecular / translational oncology study belongs in Cancer Cell (Cell Press) before investing in full submission. Diagnoses mechanism + translational-relevance fit; it does not design experiments or edit prose.
---
# Scope Fit (cc-scope-fit)
## When to trigger
- Starting a project and unsure if Cancer Cell is the right venue
- A reviewer or PI says "this feels incremental" or "too descriptive"
- Considering a Cell Press presubmission inquiry
- Deciding between Cancer Cell and a broader-scope or specialty journal
## What Cancer Cell wants
Cancer Cell publishes mechanistic, hypothesis-driven cancer biology and translational oncology. The recurring acceptance pattern combines **two pillars**:
1. **Mechanistic depth** — a defined molecular mechanism (a pathway, regulatory axis, genetic/epigenetic event, or cell-cell interaction), not just a phenotype or a correlation.
2. **Translational relevance** — the mechanism matters for human cancer: it is anchored in patient data, predicts a vulnerability, or motivates a therapeutic / biomarker strategy.
In-scope topics include tumor biology and signaling, cancer genetics / genomics, the tumor microenvironment, immuno-oncology, metastasis, therapy resistance, and clinical-translational studies that carry mechanistic insight.
## Fit decision table
| Signal in the manuscript | Fit verdict |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| Clear mechanism + validated in cells, in vivo, AND human/patient data | Strong fit |
| Mechanism + in vivo, human data is associative but supportive | Likely fit — strengthen human anchor |
| Mechanism only in cell lines, no in vivo, no human relevance | Off-fit — go back to `cc-study-design` |
| Descriptive omics / atlas with no mechanism or vulnerability | Off-fit unless reframed around a mechanism |
| Strong clinical correlation but no mechanism | Off-fit — likely a specialty / clinical journal |
| Methods / tool paper without a cancer-biology discovery | Off-fit — a methods journal |
| Therapeutic claim with only in vitro support | Premature — needs in vivo / human validation |
## How to position the contribution
- State the **gap** in mechanistic understanding, not just "X is understudied."
- Name the **orthogonal systems** that will close it (cells + in vivo + human).
- Make the **translational hook** explicit and proportionate to the evidence (mechanism → vulnerability → candidate intervention/biomarker).
- Compare to the closest 2–3 prior papers and say precisely what is new (new mechanism, new node, new context, new in vivo proof).
## Checklist
- [ ] One sentence states the mechanism (molecule/axis → effect on cancer phenotype)
- [ ] Mechanism is validated in ≥2 orthogonal systems, ideally including human/patient data
- [ ] Translational relevance is explicit and matched to the evidence level
- [ ] Closest prior work is identified; the advance over it is specific
- [ ] The study is hypothesis-driven, not purely descriptive
- [ ] Therapeutic / biomarker claims are backed by in vivo and/or human data
- [ ] If a clinical-trial-style study, mechanism still carries the novelty
## Anti-patterns
- A single-system (cell-line-only) story pitched as a major mechanism
- Descriptive single-cell / genomic atlas with no functional mechanism or vulnerability
- "Therapeutic target" framing with no in vivo efficacy or human evidence
- Overclaiming clinical impact from a correlation
- Repackaging an incremental extension of the lab's prior paper without a new mechanistic node
## Output format
```
【Scope verdict】Strong fit / Likely fit / Off-fit
【Mechanism (1 sentence)】...
【Orthogonal validation present】cells / in vivo / human — list which
【Translational hook】... (and whether evidence supports it)
【Gap vs. closest prior work】...
【Next step】Strengthen via cc-study-design / proceed to cc-study-design / reconsider venue
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!