Gec review process

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)

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. External review. Suitable submissions are typically sent to a minimum of two reviewers for independent expert assessment, usually with interdisciplinary coverage.
4. 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