From gcb-skills
Explains Global Change Biology's manuscript evaluation pipeline: desk-rejection triggers, peer-review criteria, and decision categories. Helps researchers scope and frame submissions to pass editorial screening.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/gcb-skills:gcb-review-processThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
GCB is selective and desk-rejects a large share of submissions before review. Knowing **how** it is
GCB is selective and desk-rejects a large share of submissions before review. Knowing how it is judged — what triggers desk rejection, who reviews, and what decisions look like — lets you prepare a manuscript that survives screening and convinces reviewers. Verify volatile specifics on the official page before submission.
gcb-revision-and-rebuttal)The editorial screen is where most submissions end. Map the common trigger to the pre-submission move that removes it, before the manuscript ever reaches a reviewer.
| Desk-reject trigger | Why it fires | Neutralizing move |
|---|---|---|
| Scope mismatch | Reads as regional/conservation, not global-change | Lead title/abstract with driver → response mechanism |
| Thin significance | Increment too small for a broad-readership venue | State magnitude and cross-system relevance up front |
| Scale overreach | Plot result framed as global | Match the claim to the evidence; flag extrapolation |
| Missing required element | No graphical abstract or data statement | Complete both before submitting |
| Reproducibility gap | No archiving plan visible | Stage the DOI deposit and say so |
A range-shift modelling paper is screened. The editor checks three things in order: does it test a global-change driver (yes — warming), is the advance broad (the mechanism generalizes across montane floras), and is it sound enough to review (design and uncertainty look defensible). It passes to two reviewers with matched expertise (illustrative), one a biogeographer and one a modeller. The modeller asks for the projection ensemble; because the code is already staged for archiving, the request is trivial to satisfy. Had the paper led with "a new record for our region," it would likely have stopped at the desk. Reviewer counts and roles are illustrative; confirm the current model on the official page.
【Desk-screen risk】scope + significance unmistakable? [Y/N → why]
【Reviewer concerns】scale / confounding / uncertainty / reproducibility pre-empted?
【Review model】expert review; anonymity / transparent-review option live-checked? [Y/N]
【Data ready for reviewers】[Y/N]
【Decision likely】revision categories anticipated
【Next】gcb-submission (pre-decision) or gcb-revision-and-rebuttal (post-decision)
../../resources/official-source-map.md — peer-review model and editorial screening../../resources/external_tools.md — reproducibility/data tooling reviewers may probenpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin gcb-skillsExplains Conservation Biology's double-blind peer review process: editorial screening, decision categories, and Registered Reports route. Helps prepare manuscripts to survive review.
Describes GEC's double-anonymized review, editorial screening, and decision categories to help authors prepare manuscripts and interpret outcomes.
Routes Global Change Biology manuscript work to the correct sub-skill based on article type and lifecycle stage. Dispatches, does not draft.