Gcb Cover Letter

---
name: gcb-cover-letter
description: Use when writing the cover letter for a Global Change Biology (GCB) submission. The letter must convince the editor, in a paragraph or two, that the paper shows a mechanistic global-change advance of broad relevance that fits GCB's scope and article type. Structures the letter; it does not overstate the findings.
---

# Cover Letter (gcb-cover-letter)

The cover letter is the editor's first filter at a high-desk-rejection journal. In a short letter it
must establish **scope fit**, the **global-change mechanism and advance**, and **broad relevance** —
enough for the editor to send it out rather than desk-reject. Keep it honest; reviewers will check.

## When to trigger

- Drafting or revising the cover letter for a new submission
- Stating why the paper fits GCB rather than a regional or conservation journal
- Declaring article type, novelty, and any required statements

## What the letter must do

1. **Establish scope fit in the first sentences.** Name the global-change **driver** and the
   **biological response/feedback**, and say plainly why this is a GCB paper (mechanism + broad
   relevance), not a local report.
2. **State the advance.** One or two sentences on what is new — the mechanism, the scale, the synthesis,
   or the method — and why it matters beyond your system.
3. **Name the article type.** Primary Research Article, Technical Advance, Research Review, or
   Opinion/Perspective (note that GCB Reviews are by invitation).
4. **Make the required declarations.** Originality and that the work is not under consideration
   elsewhere; suggested/excluded reviewers if invited; any conflicts; confirmation that data and code
   will be archived per policy.
5. **Be brief and specific.** A focused paragraph or two beats a hard sell; quantify the headline result.

## Structure

```
Para 1 — Driver → response + why it fits GCB's scope (mechanism, broad relevance)
Para 2 — The advance + headline quantified result + article type
Para 3 — Declarations (originality, exclusivity, data/code archiving, conflicts, reviewers)
```

## Anti-patterns

- A generic letter that never names the global-change driver or the mechanism
- Selling local/conservation relevance instead of global-change mechanism (scope mismatch)
- Overclaiming novelty the manuscript does not support
- Proposing an unsolicited "GCB Review" (those are commissioned)
- Omitting the data/code-archiving commitment that GCB requires

## Output format

```
【Scope fit】driver → response named; why GCB (not regional/conservation)? [Y/N]
【Advance】what is new + headline quantified result
【Article type】Primary Research / Technical Advance / Research Review / Opinion / Perspective
【Declarations】originality + exclusivity + data/code archiving + conflicts? [Y/N]
【Length】focused (1–2 paragraphs)? [Y/N]
【Next】gcb-review-process
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — scope, article types, and data policy referenced in the letter