Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

global-biogeochemical-cycles

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.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

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

  • The contribution is a system-scale flux/budget/feedback, not a single-site measurement.
  • Budgets and fluxes report explicit uncertainty and closure/reconciliation where applicable.
  • Models are benchmarked against observations with skill metrics and uncertainty treatment.
  • Scaling from measurement to system level propagates error defensibly.
  • Mechanistic/feedback claims are linked to the budget by evidence, not correlation alone.
  • Data and code are deposited in a FAIR repository with persistent identifiers.

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>

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3KUpdated Sep 27, 2026

See all skills by brycewang-stanford

Report a problem with this skill