Global Biogeochemical Cycles (global-biogeochemical-cycles)
Journal positioning
Global Biogeochemical Cycles (GBC) is the American Geophysical Union's journal for the
cycling of carbon, nutrients, and elements through the earth system: the fluxes,
budgets, and feedbacks that move and transform elements across land, ocean, and atmosphere,
constrained by observations, experiments, and models. The defining expectation is a
quantitative, system-scale advance in biogeochemistry — a better-constrained flux or
budget, a newly characterized feedback, or a mechanism operating at regional-to-global scale
— not a site-level process measurement of interest mainly to one community. A descriptive
local incubation, a single-station time series, or an ecological/soil study with no
implication for an element budget or earth-system feedback is a weak fit. This skill is a
fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current
author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live GBC / AGU author instructions and data
policy.
When to trigger
- The author names GBC and wants a fit/framing check for a biogeochemical-cycling,
flux/budget, or feedback paper.
- A local flux measurement or experiment must be re-framed into a system-scale budget,
feedback, or generalizable biogeochemical mechanism.
- The author is choosing between GBC,
soil-biology-and-biochemistry (soil-process
mechanism), and water-resources-research (water science).
- The author needs GBC's quantitative system-scale bar and AGU FAIR data-deposition
expectations.
Scope & topic fit
- Carbon cycle: land and ocean carbon uptake, storage, and exchange; atmospheric CO2/CH4
budgets and their drivers.
- Nutrient and element cycles: nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, silicon, sulfur, and trace
elements, and their coupling to carbon.
- Land–atmosphere and ocean–atmosphere biogeochemical exchange, including greenhouse-gas and
reactive-gas fluxes.
- Marine biogeochemistry: productivity, export, remineralization, and ocean
biogeochemical–physical coupling.
- Terrestrial biogeochemistry: soils, vegetation, wetlands, and disturbance effects on
element budgets at landscape-to-global scale.
- Biogeochemical feedbacks with climate and the human perturbation of global element cycles,
from data and earth-system/biogeochemical models.
Method & evidence bar
- The contribution must be quantitative and system-scale: a flux, budget, or feedback
that generalizes beyond one site or sample.
- Budgets and fluxes require explicit uncertainty, closure assessment where applicable, and
reconciliation of bottom-up and top-down constraints when both exist.
- Models must be evaluated against observations with skill metrics and benchmarks; parameter
and structural uncertainty should be addressed, not ignored.
- Observational and experimental work needs defensible scaling from measurement to system
level, with error propagation through the scaling.
- Mechanistic and feedback claims need evidence linking the proposed process to the budget
or signal, not correlation alone.
- Data and code underpinning fluxes, budgets, and model results should be deposited in a
FAIR community repository with a DOI per AGU policy.
Structure & house style
- AGU article format; GBC publishes research articles and commentaries — re-check current
article types and length expectations on the live guide.
- The introduction must state the biogeochemical-cycling gap and the system-scale
contribution, not just describe a site or dataset.
- A key-points summary is part of the AGU format; figures should be quantitative and
load-bearing (flux/budget diagrams, maps with uncertainty, model–data comparisons).
- Methods and a data/software-availability statement must let a reader reproduce the central
budget or flux estimate; AGU expects open data/code with persistent identifiers.
- Reported quantities should use established biogeochemical units and conventions so budgets
are comparable across studies.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.md and
../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the AGU anchors, then cite the current
GBC page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Global Biogeochemical Cycles author guidelines" and follow the
current AGU/Wiley version.
- Re-check article types, key-points and abstract format, and length/figure expectations.
- Confirm the AGU data and software availability policy: deposit data/code in an
approved FAIR repository and cite it with a DOI.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and
open-access terms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- A site-level flux measurement or incubation with no system-scale budget or feedback implication.
- Budgets or fluxes reported without uncertainty, closure, or top-down/bottom-up reconciliation.
- Model results presented without observational benchmarking or any uncertainty treatment.
- Scaling claims that ignore error propagation from measurement to global estimate.
- Missing or non-compliant data/code deposition where AGU policy requires it.
- Scope mismatch: a soil-microbial mechanism paper or an ecology paper with no element-cycle payoff.
Re-routing decision
- Soil-process mechanism (microbial, enzymatic, organic-matter) is the core →
soil-biology-and-biochemistry.
- Water-cycle or water-resources science dominant →
water-resources-research / journal-of-hydrology.
- Ecosystem/global-change biology framing dominant →
global-change-biology.
- Climate-dynamics or carbon–climate budget framing dominant →
journal-of-climate.
- A documented biogeochemical dataset is the product rather than the interpretation →
earth-system-science-data.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Global Biogeochemical Cycles
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest biogeochemical-cycling topics>
[System-scale contribution] <the flux/budget/feedback advance beyond one site>
[Method/evidence] <do uncertainty + scaling + model/data evaluation + deposition clear GBC's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / key points / AGU data-software policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
1---2name: global-biogeochemical-cycles3description: Use when targeting Global Biogeochemical Cycles (GBC) or deciding whether a biogeochemical-cycling manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's system-scale fluxes/budgets/feedbacks fit, the quantitative biogeochemistry evidence bar, AGU FAIR data-deposition expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.4---56# Global Biogeochemical Cycles (global-biogeochemical-cycles)78## Journal positioning910Global Biogeochemical Cycles (GBC) is the American Geophysical Union's journal for the11**cycling of carbon, nutrients, and elements through the earth system**: the fluxes,12budgets, and feedbacks that move and transform elements across land, ocean, and atmosphere,13constrained by observations, experiments, and models. The defining expectation is a14**quantitative, system-scale advance in biogeochemistry** — a better-constrained flux or15budget, a newly characterized feedback, or a mechanism operating at regional-to-global scale16— not a site-level process measurement of interest mainly to one community. A descriptive17local incubation, a single-station time series, or an ecological/soil study with no18implication for an element budget or earth-system feedback is a weak fit. This skill is a19**fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current20author guidance. Before submitting, re-check the live GBC / AGU author instructions and data21policy.2223## When to trigger2425- The author names GBC and wants a fit/framing check for a biogeochemical-cycling,26 flux/budget, or feedback paper.27- A local flux measurement or experiment must be re-framed into a system-scale budget,28 feedback, or generalizable biogeochemical mechanism.29- The author is choosing between GBC, `soil-biology-and-biochemistry` (soil-process30 mechanism), and `water-resources-research` (water science).31- The author needs GBC's quantitative system-scale bar and AGU FAIR data-deposition32 expectations.3334## Scope & topic fit3536- Carbon cycle: land and ocean carbon uptake, storage, and exchange; atmospheric CO2/CH437 budgets and their drivers.38- Nutrient and element cycles: nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, silicon, sulfur, and trace39 elements, and their coupling to carbon.40- Land–atmosphere and ocean–atmosphere biogeochemical exchange, including greenhouse-gas and41 reactive-gas fluxes.42- Marine biogeochemistry: productivity, export, remineralization, and ocean43 biogeochemical–physical coupling.44- Terrestrial biogeochemistry: soils, vegetation, wetlands, and disturbance effects on45 element budgets at landscape-to-global scale.46- Biogeochemical feedbacks with climate and the human perturbation of global element cycles,47 from data and earth-system/biogeochemical models.4849## Method & evidence bar5051- The contribution must be **quantitative and system-scale**: a flux, budget, or feedback52 that generalizes beyond one site or sample.53- Budgets and fluxes require explicit uncertainty, closure assessment where applicable, and54 reconciliation of bottom-up and top-down constraints when both exist.55- Models must be evaluated against observations with skill metrics and benchmarks; parameter56 and structural uncertainty should be addressed, not ignored.57- Observational and experimental work needs defensible scaling from measurement to system58 level, with error propagation through the scaling.59- Mechanistic and feedback claims need evidence linking the proposed process to the budget60 or signal, not correlation alone.61- Data and code underpinning fluxes, budgets, and model results should be deposited in a62 FAIR community repository with a DOI per AGU policy.6364## Structure & house style6566- AGU article format; GBC publishes research articles and commentaries — re-check current67 article types and length expectations on the live guide.68- The introduction must state the biogeochemical-cycling gap and the system-scale69 contribution, not just describe a site or dataset.70- A key-points summary is part of the AGU format; figures should be quantitative and71 load-bearing (flux/budget diagrams, maps with uncertainty, model–data comparisons).72- Methods and a data/software-availability statement must let a reader reproduce the central73 budget or flux estimate; AGU expects open data/code with persistent identifiers.74- Reported quantities should use established biogeochemical units and conventions so budgets75 are comparable across studies.7677## Official-submission checklist7879- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and80 `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the AGU anchors, then cite the current81 GBC page you checked.82- Search the live site for "Global Biogeochemical Cycles author guidelines" and follow the83 current AGU/Wiley version.84- Re-check article types, key-points and abstract format, and length/figure expectations.85- Confirm the **AGU data and software availability policy**: deposit data/code in an86 approved FAIR repository and cite it with a DOI.87- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and88 open-access terms.89- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions90 win.9192## Pre-submission self-check9394- [ ] The contribution is a system-scale flux/budget/feedback, not a single-site measurement.95- [ ] Budgets and fluxes report explicit uncertainty and closure/reconciliation where applicable.96- [ ] Models are benchmarked against observations with skill metrics and uncertainty treatment.97- [ ] Scaling from measurement to system level propagates error defensibly.98- [ ] Mechanistic/feedback claims are linked to the budget by evidence, not correlation alone.99- [ ] Data and code are deposited in a FAIR repository with persistent identifiers.100101## Common desk-reject triggers102103- A site-level flux measurement or incubation with no system-scale budget or feedback implication.104- Budgets or fluxes reported without uncertainty, closure, or top-down/bottom-up reconciliation.105- Model results presented without observational benchmarking or any uncertainty treatment.106- Scaling claims that ignore error propagation from measurement to global estimate.107- Missing or non-compliant data/code deposition where AGU policy requires it.108- Scope mismatch: a soil-microbial mechanism paper or an ecology paper with no element-cycle payoff.109110## Re-routing decision111112- Soil-process mechanism (microbial, enzymatic, organic-matter) is the core → `soil-biology-and-biochemistry`.113- Water-cycle or water-resources science dominant → `water-resources-research` / `journal-of-hydrology`.114- Ecosystem/global-change biology framing dominant → `global-change-biology`.115- Climate-dynamics or carbon–climate budget framing dominant → `journal-of-climate`.116- A documented biogeochemical dataset is the product rather than the interpretation → `earth-system-science-data`.117118## Output format119120```text121[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)122[Target] Global Biogeochemical Cycles123[Topic tags] <2–3 closest biogeochemical-cycling topics>124[System-scale contribution] <the flux/budget/feedback advance beyond one site>125[Method/evidence] <do uncertainty + scaling + model/data evaluation + deposition clear GBC's bar?>126[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>127[Official items to re-check] <article type / key points / AGU data-software policy / disclosures>128[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>129```