| name | gec-review-process |
| description | Use to understand how Global Environmental Change (GEC) evaluates a manuscript — double-anonymized review, editorial screening for scope and social-science fit, the role of multiple external reviewers, and the decision categories. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors. |
Review Process (gec-review-process)
Knowing how GEC screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. GEC uses
double-anonymized review and screens first for scope and social-science fit — the most common
avoidable rejection is a paper without a genuine human-dimensions contribution. Process facts were
refreshed from the official Guide for Authors on 2026-06-20.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test against editorial-screening grounds
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what interdisciplinary reviewers are likely to weigh
- Deciding whether the social-science contribution is strong enough to clear the desk
How GEC review works (verified 2026-06-20; re-confirm volatile items)
- Double-anonymized. Reviewers do not know the authors and authors do not know reviewers; submit a
separate title page and anonymized manuscript (see
gec-submission).
- Editorial screening first. Editors assess fit with the human-and-policy-dimensions scope,
the presence of a significant social-science component, sufficient significance, and adequate
engagement with the relevant literatures. Out-of-scope or natural-science-only papers are screened out.
- External review. Suitable submissions are typically sent to a minimum of two reviewers for
independent expert assessment, usually with interdisciplinary coverage.
- Appeals. A formal appeal can be submitted if it meets Elsevier's appeal-policy requirements; only
one appeal per submission is considered, and the appeal decision is final.
Shape the paper to pass
- Make the human/policy contribution and scope fit explicit (avoids the most common screen-out).
- Engage the relevant interdisciplinary literatures (a single-silo paper invites a fit objection).
- Anticipate reviewers from different disciplines — define terms, justify methods on their own terms.
- Clear ethics/IRB and human-subjects compliance and the data statement up front.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a natural-science / biophysical paper with no social-science contribution (scope screen-out)
- Ignoring an obvious related literature on the human-dimensions or domain side
- Assuming a single-discipline framing will satisfy interdisciplinary reviewers
- Expecting a fast turnaround; plan for a multi-month review
Output format
【Scope / fit check】human-dimensions + policy relevance clear? [Y/N]
【Social-science component】significant and central? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】interdisciplinary? [Y/N]
【Review model】double-anonymized — manuscript anonymized? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / major revision / minor revision
【Next】gec-submission (or gec-revision-and-rebuttal if decided)
Supplementary resources
