gcb-workflow

GCB Workflow Router (gcb-workflow)

The orchestrator for a Global Change Biology submission. Figure out the stage and the **article

type, then send the user to the matching skill. GCB publishes mechanistic links between global

environmental change and biological systems** — the router's first job is to make sure the paper leads

with a driver → biological-response mechanism of broad relevance, not a local description or a

conservation-management plan.

When to trigger

• Starting a new GCB paper and unsure where to begin
• Mid-project and unsure which skill applies next
• Deciding which article type fits the contribution
• Returning with a decision letter (route to gcb-revision-and-rebuttal)

First question: which article type?

| Situation | Article type | Route to |

|-----------|--------------|----------|

| Completed original study, broad global-change relevance | Primary Research Article | normal pipeline below |

| New tool / method / modelling approach | Technical Advance | gcb-study-design + gcb-data-analysis |

| Integrative synthesis of a literature | Research Review (open) / GCB Review (invited) | gcb-literature-positioning + gcb-writing-style |

| Argued position / forward-looking view | Opinion (~3,000–5,000 w) / Perspective (~1,500 w) | gcb-topic-selection + gcb-writing-style |

> GCB Reviews are commissioned; the Research Reviews section is open for unsolicited submission.

> Live-check the current article-type list and caps in the official Wiley guidance before submission.

Routing map (stage → skill)

Idea / global-change fit?        → gcb-topic-selection
Where does it sit in the field?  → gcb-literature-positioning
Is the design defensible?        → gcb-study-design
Are the analyses sound?          → gcb-data-analysis
Are the exhibits mechanistic?    → gcb-figures-and-tables
Data & code archived?            → gcb-reporting-and-data-policy
Does it read for GCB?            → gcb-writing-style
Cover letter for the editor?     → gcb-cover-letter
How will it be judged?           → gcb-review-process
Ready to submit?                 → gcb-submission
Got a decision / revision?       → gcb-revision-and-rebuttal

Default order

`topic-selection → literature-positioning → study-design → data-analysis → figures-and-tables →

reporting-and-data-policy → writing-style → cover-letter → review-process → submission →

revision-and-rebuttal`

Iterate: most papers loop design ↔ analysis ↔ figures several times before writing-style.

Symptom-to-skill dispatch

When a user arrives mid-stream with a complaint rather than a stage, route by symptom. Each row sends

the question to the sub-skill that owns the fix.

| User says | Underlying issue | Route to |

|-----------|------------------|----------|

| "Editor desk-rejected on scope" | Fit/significance framing | gcb-topic-selection then gcb-cover-letter |

| "Reviewer says it's correlative" | Mechanism not tested | gcb-study-design + gcb-data-analysis |

| "Can't scale plot to biome" | Uncertainty not propagated | gcb-data-analysis |

| "Graphical abstract rejected" | Non-mechanistic exhibit | gcb-figures-and-tables |

| "Data statement non-compliant" | Archiving gap | gcb-reporting-and-data-policy |

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A user returns with a major-revision letter on a remote-sensing carbon-flux paper. The router reads the

decisive comments: the mechanism is called correlative and the scaling lacks uncertainty. It dispatches

first to gcb-data-analysis to add an ensemble and partition uncertainty, then to gcb-figures-and-tables

to make the driver-response panel lead, then to gcb-revision-and-rebuttal to assemble the response. It

also confirms the Zenodo code archive is re-tagged via gcb-reporting-and-data-policy. The order is

driven by which comments the editor flagged as decisive, not by the default pipeline. Scenario is

illustrative.

Routing pitfalls the orchestrator guards against

• Sending a scope-mismatched idea down the writing pipeline before fixing fit in topic selection.
• Treating archiving as a final step rather than staging it during analysis.
• Routing an invited-only review type as if it were open for submission.

Anti-patterns

• Pitching a local case study with no global-change mechanism or broad relevance
• Confusing GCB with a conservation-practice journal (mechanism/ecosystems, not action plans)
• Submitting an unsolicited "GCB Review" (those are by invitation — use Research Reviews)
• Leaving data/code archiving until acceptance — deposit is a condition of publication

Output format

【Stage】idea / positioning / design / analysis / exhibits / data-policy / writing / cover-letter / review / submit / revise
【Article type】Primary Research Article / Technical Advance / Research Review / Opinion / Perspective
【Route to】gcb-<skill>
【Why】one line
【Then】the next skill after that

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/external_tools.md](../../resources/external_tools.md) — global-change data + software by method
• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — official GCB URLs behind every fact in this pack