| name | gcb-workflow |
| description | Use as the entry point for any Global Change Biology (GCB) manuscript. Routes to the right GCB sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (Primary Research Article, Technical Advance, Review / Research Review, Opinion / Perspective) fits. It dispatches; it does not draft content. |
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
