Living Reviews In Relativity

---
name: living-reviews-in-relativity
description: Use when targeting Living Reviews in Relativity (LRR) or deciding whether an invited, continuously updated authoritative review in relativity and gravitation fits this very-high-impact Springer venue that publishes no primary research. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Living Reviews in Relativity (living-reviews-in-relativity)

## Journal positioning

Living Reviews in Relativity is a Springer journal that publishes invited, continuously updated, authoritative review articles in relativity and gravitation. Its defining character is the "living" model: an article is maintained and revised by its authors as the field evolves, so each review remains the current definitive reference on its topic. LRR is among the highest-impact journals in all of science precisely because each article is a comprehensive, expert, and up-to-date survey that the entire gravitation community relies on. It publishes no primary research; the currency is exhaustive, balanced, pedagogical synthesis with a long maintenance commitment. Readership is the international relativity, gravitation, cosmology, and gravitational-wave community, including graduate students entering the field. This skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before proposing, re-check the live author and invitation instructions on the Living Reviews in Relativity Springer site.

## When to trigger

- The author is considering a comprehensive, maintainable review of a relativity/gravitation topic for Living Reviews in Relativity.
- A leading group is asked, or wishes to propose, an authoritative living survey they will commit to updating over years.
- An author is choosing between Living Reviews in Relativity, Reviews of Modern Physics, and a topical-review format for a definitive gravitation review.
- The author needs LRR's invitation model, comprehensiveness and maintenance expectations, and desk-reject criteria before drafting.

## Scope & topic fit

- Comprehensive reviews of established or rapidly developing topics in general relativity and gravitation, written as standing references.
- Cosmology and relativistic astrophysics surveys — inflation, dark energy, structure formation, compact objects — at reference depth.
- Gravitational-wave science: source modeling, detection methods, data analysis, and tests of GR, maintained against an evolving observational record.
- Numerical relativity and approximation methods (post-Newtonian, perturbation theory) as complete methodological references.
- Quantum gravity and semiclassical gravity: comprehensive surveys of a program's formalism, results, and open problems.
- Mathematical relativity: rigorous, exhaustive treatments of a problem area suitable as a long-lived reference.

## Method & evidence bar

- The review must be comprehensive, balanced, and authoritative — the definitive current account of its topic, fairly covering competing approaches and open problems.
- Authors must be recognized leaders able to develop the formalism and results in a self-contained, pedagogical way for newcomers and experts alike.
- The "living" commitment is part of the bar: authors must be willing and able to maintain and update the article as the field advances.
- Claims and results must be accurately attributed with comprehensive, current citation; derivations and figures should be correct, original, and pedagogical.
- LRR articles are invited or arise from accepted proposals; a scope-and-outline proposal demonstrating coverage and the maintenance commitment is expected.
- No primary research data are reported; any analysis is illustrative and clearly secondary to the review's synthetic, reference purpose.

## Structure & house style

- LRR articles use a long, hierarchically structured reference format: extended introduction, full development of formalism, results, applications, and open problems.
- Length follows completeness; the article must stand alone so a reader can learn the topic from it without prior specialist background.
- Use the journal's LaTeX class with consistent relativistic conventions (signature, units, indices) stated explicitly and maintained throughout.
- Figures, tables, and appendices carry derivations, parameter compilations, and worked examples; schematics that clarify formalism are valued.
- Versioning is part of the format: revisions are tracked and the article records its update history under the living model.
- Citation is exhaustive and kept current at each revision, reflecting the article's standing-reference role.

## 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 "Living Reviews in Relativity author guidelines" and follow the current Springer version.
- Re-check the invitation/proposal process and the requirements and commitment for maintaining a living article over time.
- Re-check article structure, length, versioning, and figure/notation conventions for the living format.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, AI-use, and figure-permission disclosure requirements; confirm preprint/update policy.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] One sentence — the relativity/gravitation topic this review will become the definitive living reference for.
- [ ] The article is comprehensive, balanced, and self-contained, developing the formalism for newcomers and experts.
- [ ] The author team can commit to maintaining and updating the article as the field evolves.
- [ ] Competing approaches and open problems are fairly and currently covered; citation is exhaustive.
- [ ] Figures, derivations, and conventions are original, correct, and consistent throughout.
- [ ] A proposal with scope, outline, and the maintenance commitment is prepared, or an invitation is in hand.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A primary-research manuscript submitted as a review; LRR publishes no original research.
- A normal-length or one-sided survey lacking the comprehensiveness and balance of a standing reference.
- A review with no credible commitment to the ongoing maintenance the living model requires.
- A self-promotional account foregrounding the authors' own program and omitting competing approaches.
- A full manuscript submitted without a proposal/invitation where the journal's commissioning model requires one.

## Re-routing decision

- Definitive, technical, specialist review of a physics topic in the broad Physical Review family: `reviews-of-modern-physics`.
- Accessible, cross-disciplinary, editor-commissioned review for the broad physics readership: `nature-reviews-physics`.
- Comprehensive, monograph-length one-time topical review across physics: `physics-reports`.
- A complete primary-research study in gravitation rather than a review: `classical-and-quantum-gravity` or `physical-review-d`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Living Reviews in Relativity
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is this a comprehensive, balanced, self-contained living reference, by leaders who can commit to maintaining it?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <invitation/proposal / maintenance commitment / structure & versioning / notation / disclosure / permissions>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```