---

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

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — global-change data + software by method
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official GCB URLs behind every fact in this pack