global-change-biology

name	global-change-biology
description	Use when targeting Global Change Biology or deciding whether a biology/ecology manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the global-change-driver framing and biological-evidence bar, scale and mechanism expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Global Change Biology (global-change-biology)

Journal positioning

Global Change Biology is the Wiley journal for the biological and ecological responses of the living world to global change — climate warming, elevated CO2, altered precipitation, nitrogen deposition, land-use and land-cover change, and their interactions. Its defining expectation is a clear global-change driver coupled to rigorous biological evidence: a study that links an explicit global-change forcing to a biological or ecological response, with mechanism or consequence resolved from the molecular to the ecosystem scale. A local ecology, physiology, or biogeochemistry study with no global-change driver or framing is a weak fit, however well executed. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Global Change Biology submission guidance.

When to trigger

• The author names Global Change Biology and wants a fit/framing check for a global-change ecology or biology paper.
• A local ecological, physiological, or soil/biogeochemical study must be re-framed around an explicit global-change driver and its biological consequences.
• The author is choosing between Global Change Biology, a general ecology journal, and an earth-system or biogeochemistry venue.
• The author needs this journal's global-change-framing requirement and biological-evidence bar.

Scope & topic fit

• Responses of organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems to climate change, elevated CO2, warming, drought, and shifting disturbance regimes.
• Terrestrial, freshwater, and marine carbon, nutrient, and greenhouse-gas cycling when the biological response to a global-change driver is central.
• Land-use and land-cover change, nitrogen deposition, and their interactions with climate on biodiversity, productivity, and biogeochemistry.
• Phenology, range shifts, species interactions, and evolutionary/acclimation responses under global-change forcing.
• Mechanistic, manipulative experiments (warming, FACE, N-addition), long-term observations, syntheses, and process-based or data-driven modeling of global-change responses.
• Feedbacks between the biosphere and the climate system, including mitigation/adaptation relevance grounded in biological evidence.

Method & evidence bar

• A global-change driver must be explicit and causally connected to the biological response — not a study where climate is mentioned only in the framing sentences.
• Manipulative experiments need appropriate replication, realistic treatment levels, and controls; pseudoreplication and unrealistic forcing levels are common failings.
• Observational and gradient studies must address confounding, space-for-time assumptions, and the limits of attribution to the global-change driver.
• Models must be evaluated against data with skill metrics and uncertainty; scenario and parameter choices must be justified and sensitivity explored.
• Syntheses and meta-analyses need a transparent, reproducible search, effect-size handling, and heterogeneity/bias assessment.
• Conclusions about consequences must match the scale of evidence — extrapolation from one site or one season to ecosystem- or global-scale claims must be justified.

Structure & house style

• Standard research-article structure; the journal also publishes reviews, syntheses, and shorter formats — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
• The introduction must foreground the global-change driver, the biological question, and the knowledge gap, framing the work for a broad global-change readership.
• Figures should be quantitative and mechanism- or consequence-oriented (response curves, treatment contrasts, maps with uncertainty), not purely descriptive site characterizations.
• Methods, data, and code must support reproducibility; follow the journal's data-availability expectations and deposit data/code where required.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Wiley anchors, then cite the current Global Change Biology page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Global Change Biology author guidelines" and follow the current Wiley version.
• Re-check article types (research, review, synthesis, opinion), length, and abstract expectations.
• Confirm the data- and code-availability policy and any repository/DOI deposition requirement.
• For meta-analyses, re-check whether a reporting standard and data-table deposition are expected.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• An explicit global-change driver is causally linked to the biological/ecological response.
• Experiments have adequate replication, realistic treatments, and proper controls (no pseudoreplication).
• Observational/gradient inferences address confounding and attribution limits.
• Models are benchmarked with skill metrics and uncertainty; scenarios are justified.
• Conclusions are scaled to the evidence, with extrapolation explicitly justified.
• Data/code availability meets the journal's policy.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A local ecology/physiology study with global change only in the framing, not in the design.
• Pseudoreplicated or unrealistically forced manipulative experiments.
• Space-for-time or gradient inference with unaddressed confounding presented as global-change attribution.
• Model results with no benchmarking, uncertainty, or justified scenarios.
• Site- or season-limited results extrapolated to ecosystem/global conclusions without justification.
• Scope mismatch: pure earth-system/geophysical or pure methods work with no biological response.

Re-routing decision

• Food-systems significance dominant over the biology → nature-food.
• Pollutant/contaminant ecological impact is the core → environmental-pollution.
• Authoritative invited synthesis of the field → annual-review-of-environment-and-resources.
• Broad sustainability/solutions framing → nature-sustainability.
• General ecology without a global-change driver → a general ecology journal (e.g., ecology / journal-of-ecology).

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Global Change Biology
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest global-change-biology topics>
[Global-change driver] <the explicit forcing and the biological response it drives>
[Method/evidence] <does replication/attribution/benchmarking clear the biological-evidence bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / data-code policy / meta-analysis standard / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>