---
name: gec-review-process
description: Use to understand how Global Environmental Change (GEC) evaluates a manuscript — double-blind 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-blind** review and screens first for **scope and social-science fit** — the most common
avoidable rejection is a paper without a genuine human-dimensions contribution. (Verify the current
model and timeline on the live journal page; some items here come from secondary sources — see 待核实.)

## 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 (verify volatile items)

1. **Double-blind.** Reviewers do not know the authors and authors do not know reviewers; anonymize the
   manuscript accordingly (see `gec-submission`). 待核实 on the current model.
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.** Papers passing screening go to **multiple external reviewers** (commonly at
   least two, preferably three), typically drawn from more than one discipline. Review can take on the
   order of **several months** (figures around 12-24 weeks appear in secondary sources). 待核实.
4. **Decision categories**: the usual Elsevier set — **reject**, **major/minor revision**, or
   **accept** — with revise decisions for papers that can plausibly reach the bar.

## 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-blind (verify) — 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, and timeline notes (with 待核实 markers)