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