How do I install the Gec Review Process skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add brycewang-stanford/gec-review-process in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Gec Review Process safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Gec Review Process?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Gec Review Process free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Gec Review Process?

brycewang-stanford (@brycewang-stanford) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Gec Review Process by brycewang-stanford

Name: Gec Review Process
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: brycewang-stanford

Gec Review Process

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.

brycewang-stanford Updated Sep 8, 2026 1k repo stars

File contents

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

---name: gec-review-processdescription: 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.---# 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 commonavoidable rejection is a paper without a genuine human-dimensions contribution. Process facts wererefreshed 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`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — peer-review model, reviewer count, appeals, and scope notes

Frequently asked questions