gcb-review-process
Use to understand how a Global Change Biology (GCB) manuscript is judged — high desk-rejection screening for scope and significance, expert single-anonymous peer review with 2–3 reviewers, and the decision categories. Sets expectations and informs preparation; it does not contact editors or predict outcomes.
Profile →npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill gcb-review-process --agent claude-code
Same command for any agent — swap --agent for codex, cursor, copilot.
Weekly change comes from our own snapshots, not the repository page — it measures attention, not adoption.
# Review Process (gcb-review-process) 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. ## When to trigger - Setting expectations before submitting - Diagnosing why a paper might be desk-rejected - Anticipating reviewer concerns to pre-empt in the manuscript - Interpreting a decision letter (then route to `gcb-revision-and-rebuttal`) ## How GCB judges a paper 1. **Editorial / desk screening (high bar).** Editors screen first for **scope fit** (a mechanistic global-change → biological-response advance), **significance / broad relevance**, and basic soundness. A large fraction is **desk-rejected** quickly; a poor scope/significance fit is the most common cause. 2. **Expert peer review.** Matched experts assess mechanism, design, inference, uncertainty, and reproducibility; live-check current anonymity / transparent-review options on the official page. 3. **Reviewer access to data.** Reviewers may request access
- When to trigger
- How GCB judges a paper
- Prepare for the way it is judged
- Desk-reject triggers and how to neutralize them
- Worked micro-example (illustrative)
- What expert reviewers reliably probe
- Anti-patterns
- Output format
- Supplementary resources
What does the gcb-review-process skill do?
Use to understand how a Global Change Biology (GCB) manuscript is judged — high desk-rejection screening for scope and significance, expert single-anonymous peer review with 2–3 reviewers, and the decision categories. Sets expectations and informs preparation; it does not contact editors or predict outcomes.
How do I install it?
Run `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill gcb-review-process --agent claude-code` — it drops the skill into your project so the agent can pick it up. Swap the --agent value for codex, cursor or copilot if you use one of those.
Where does this skill come from?
From brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills, a repository with 909 stars. We read it straight from the repository tree rather than a submitted listing, so what you see here is what is actually published.
Is a popular skill a good skill?
Not necessarily. Stars measure attention, not adoption — a repository can trend for a week and be abandoned. That is why we show the weekly change from our own snapshots next to the total, instead of a single flattering number.