brycewang-stanford Submission Preflight (gcb-submission)
The last check before pressing submit on ScholarOne / Manuscript Central (mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcb).
GCB desk-rejects heavily, so the preflight is about removing avoidable reasons to bounce: wrong scope
framing, missing graphical abstract, over-length text, or a non-compliant data statement. Verify
volatile specifics on the official page before relying on them.
When to trigger
- "Submitting tomorrow" — last pass before upload
- Unsure which files/metadata ScholarOne expects
- Confirming the chosen article type's caps and required elements are met
Process facts (verify volatile items on the official page)
- Publisher: Wiley.
- Portal: ScholarOne / Manuscript Central (
mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gcb). - Article types: Research Articles, Technical Advances, Reviews, GCB Reviews, Mini Reviews, Opinions, and Perspectives; GCB Reviews should be treated as commissioned unless the live guidance states otherwise.
- Length: Research Articles currently route to an up to 8,000-word cap; confirm what the cap includes on the live page.
- Abstract: 300-word limit; 6–10 keywords or phrases.
- Graphical abstract: required — depicts the driver-to-response mechanism.
- Data/code: data availability statement required; data and code archived with a DOI as a condition of publication ("available on request" not accepted).
- Review model: editor-mediated expert review; live-check current anonymity / transparent-review options.
Preflight checklist
Article type & length
- Article type chosen and its word cap met (confirm current cap)
- Abstract within 300-word limit, states aim + approach + quantified result + conclusion
- 6–10 keywords
Required elements
- Graphical abstract showing driver → response mechanism
- Data availability statement naming repository + access (not "on request")
- Data and code archived (or staged) with a DOI per policy (see
gcb-reporting-and-data-policy) - Figures/tables self-contained and accessible (see
gcb-figures-and-tables)
Format & metadata
- Manuscript formatted per current GCB/Wiley template; author-date citations consistent
- Cover letter establishes scope fit + advance (see
gcb-cover-letter) - Author list, ORCID, affiliations, conflicts, and funding complete
- Ethics / permits / sampling compliance stated where applicable
Last-mile failure modes at upload
These are the avoidable bounces that surface in the final hour. Catch each one here rather than in a desk-reject letter.
| Failure mode | Where it bites | Pre-upload fix |
|---|---|---|
| Graphical abstract missing/non-mechanistic | Required element check | Supply a driver → response figure |
| Abstract over cap | Metadata field | Trim to the current limit |
| Data statement says "on request" | Compliance screen | Name repository + DOI + access route |
| Wrong article type for the content | Editorial triage | Match type to contribution and its caps |
| Missing ORCID / conflicts / funding | ScholarOne fields | Complete all author metadata |
Worked micro-example (illustrative)
A meta-analysis is queued for upload. The preflight catches three things: the graphical abstract was a forest plot (a result, not the mechanism) — replaced with a warming → biomass-response arrow; the abstract ran an illustrative 340 words against an assumed ~300 cap — trimmed; and the data statement read "on request" — rewritten to name the Dryad and Zenodo DOIs with the access route. Article type is confirmed as a Research Review (open section), not an unsolicited GCB Review. With those fixed, the remaining metadata fields pass. Word counts and the cap are illustrative; verify the current caps before submitting.
Referee/editor pushback this preflight pre-empts
- "Scope reads as regional" → confirm the cover letter and abstract lead with the global-change mechanism.
- "Non-compliant data statement" → verify a DOI deposit is named, not request-only access.
- "Over-length" → confirm the manuscript and abstract meet the current article-type caps.
Anti-patterns
- Missing or non-mechanistic graphical abstract (site map / phylogeny)
- "Data available on request" instead of a DOI deposit (rejected)
- Over-length manuscript or an abstract over the cap
- Wrong scope framing (local/conservation) that invites a desk reject
- Submitting an unsolicited "GCB Review" (use Research Reviews)
Output format
【Article type】... (cap met? confirm current cap) [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (300-word limit) + 6–10 keywords
【Graphical abstract】driver → response present? [Y/N]
【Data statement + DOI deposit】names repo, not "on request"? [Y/N]
【Cover letter + metadata】scope fit, ORCID, conflicts complete? [Y/N]
【Next】await decision → gcb-revision-and-rebuttal on revision
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— submission portal, repositories, reference/template tooling../../resources/official-source-map.md— official GCB URLs behind every fact in this pack