Gec review process
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. ｜ 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包，从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程，助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill gec-review-processAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
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.
SKILL.md
3.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
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
../../resources/official-source-map.md— peer-review model, reviewer count, appeals, and scope notes